UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

OR

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018

OR

OR

Date of event requiring this shell company report                     

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number 001-33811

Navios Maritime Partners L.P.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Not Applicable

(Translation of Registrant’s Name into English)

Republic of Marshall Islands

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

7 Avenue de Grande Bretagne, Office 11B2

Monte Carlo, MC 98000 Monaco

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Todd E. Mason

Thompson Hine LLP

335 Madison Ave.

New York, NY 10017

todd.mason@thompsonhine.com

(212) 908-3946

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act. None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act. None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report: 169,054,258 Common Units

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or (15)(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter periods that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such reporting requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or emerging growth company. See the definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large Accelerated Filer  ☐         Accelerated Filer  ☒         Non-Accelerated Filer  ☐        Emerging Growth Company  ☐

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards† provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.

☐  Item 17                ☐  Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in this report.

Statements included in this annual report which are not historical facts (including our statements concerning plans and objectives of management for future operations or economic performance, or assumptions related thereto) are forward-looking statements. In addition, we and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements which are also forward-looking statements. Such statements include, in particular, statements about our plans, strategies, business prospects, changes and trends in our business, and the markets in which we operate as described in this annual report. In some cases, you can identify the forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “may,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “forecast,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “propose,” “potential,” “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology.

Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places and include statements with respect to, among other things:

1

These and other forward-looking statements are made based upon management’s current plans, expectations, estimates, assumptions and beliefs concerning future events impacting us and therefore involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including those set forth below, as well as those risks discussed in “Item 3. Key Information”.

The risks and assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control. We caution that forward-looking statements are not guarantees and that actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements.

We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement or statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of these factors. Further, we cannot assess the impact of each such factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to be materially different from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

PART I

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers

Not Applicable.

2

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not Applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

A. Selected Financial Data

The selected consolidated historical financial information as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 and operating results for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, were derived from our audited consolidated financial statements of Navios Maritime Partners L.P. (sometimes referred to as “Navios Partners”, the “Partnership”, “we” or “us”) which are included elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated historical financial information as of December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and for the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 have been derived from our audited financial statements not included in this report. This information is qualified by reference to, and should be read in conjunction with, “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.

3

B. Capitalization and indebtedness.

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the offer and use of proceeds.

Not applicable.

D. Risk factors

Risks Relating to Our Business

We are a holding company and we depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us in order to satisfy our financial obligations and to make distributions.

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets, including our ships. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay our obligations and to make distributions depends entirely on our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of a subsidiary to make these distributions could be affected by a claim or other action by a third party, including a creditor, or by the law of their respective jurisdiction of incorporation which regulates the payment of distributions. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, our Board of Directors may not exercise its discretion not to declare or make distributions.

We depend on Navios Holdings and its affiliates to assist us in operating and expanding our business.

Pursuant to the Management Agreement between Navios Partners and the Manager, an affiliate of our general partner, the Manager provides to us significant commercial and technical management services (including the commercial and technical management of our vessels, vessel maintenance and crewing, purchasing and insurance and shipyard supervision). In addition, pursuant to the Administrative Services Agreement between us and the Manager, the Manager provides to Navios Partners significant administrative, financial and other support services. Our operational success and ability to execute our growth strategy will depend significantly upon the Manager’s satisfactory performance of these services. Our business will be harmed if the Manager fails to perform these services satisfactorily, if the Manager cancels either of these agreements, or if the Manager stops providing these services to us.

Our growth depends on continued growth in demand for drybulk commodities, finished or semi-finished goods, and the shipping of drybulk cargoes as well as the shipping of containers.

Our growth strategy focuses on expansion in the dry cargo shipping sector. Accordingly, our growth depends on continued growth in world and regional demand for drybulk commodities, finished or semi-finished goods and the shipping of dry cargoes, which could be negatively affected by a number of factors, such as declines in prices for drybulk commodities or containerized cargoes, or general political and economic conditions.

We anticipate that the future demand for our drybulk carriers and drybulk charter rates will be dependent upon demand for imported commodities, economic growth in the emerging markets, including the Asia Pacific region, India, Brazil and Russia. In past years, China and India have had two of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product and have been the main driving force behind increases in marine drybulk trade and the demand for drybulk vessels. The Asia Pacific and Indian economies have also been significant suppliers of manufactured goods currently shipped by container to the developed markets of the OECD. If economic growth declines in China, Japan, India and other countries in the Asia Pacific region, we may face decreases in such drybulk and container shipping trade and demand. For example, the recent slowdown of the Chinese economy has adversely affected demand for Capesize bulk carriers and, as a result, spot and period rates, as well as asset values, are currently at low levels. A slowdown in the

4

economies of the United States or the European Union, or certain other Asian countries may also adversely affect economic growth in the Asia Pacific region and India. A decline in demand for commodities transported in drybulk carriers and/or containerships, or an increase in supply of drybulk vessels or containerships could cause a further decline in charter rates, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. If we sell a vessel at a time when the market value of our vessels has fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying amount, resulting in a loss.

A decrease in the level of China’s imports of raw materials or a decrease in trade globally could have a material adverse impact on our charterers’ business and, in turn, could cause a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

China imports significant quantities of raw materials. For example, in 2018, China imported 1.047 billion tons of iron ore by sea out of a total of 1.476 billion tons shipped globally, accounting for about 71% of the global seaborne iron ore trade. While it only accounted for approximately 19% of seaborne coal movements of coal in 2018 according to current estimates (236 million tons imported compared to 1.262 billion tons of seaborne coal traded globally), that is a decline from over 22% in 2013 (264 million tons imported compared to 1.182 billion tons of seaborne coal traded globally). Our drybulk vessels are deployed by our charterers on routes involving drybulk trade in and out of emerging markets, and our charterers’ drybulk shipping and business revenue may be derived from the shipment of goods within and to the Asia Pacific region from various overseas export markets. Any reduction in or hindrance to China-based importers could have a material adverse effect on the growth rate of China’s imports and on our charterers’ business. For instance, the government of China has implemented economic policies aimed at reducing pollution, increasing consumption of domestically produced Chinese coal or promoting the export of such coal or increasing consumption of natural gas or increasing the production of electricity from renewable resources. This may have the effect of reducing the demand for imported raw materials and may, in turn, result in a decrease in demand for drybulk shipping. Additionally, though in China there is an increasing level of autonomy and a gradual shift in emphasis to a “market economy” and enterprise reform, many of the reforms, particularly some limited price reforms that result in the prices for certain commodities being principally determined by market forces, are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition. The level of imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected by changes to these economic reforms by the Chinese government, as well as by changes in political, economic and social conditions or other relevant policies of the Chinese government.

Our operations expose us to the risk that increased trade protectionism from China or other nations will adversely affect our business. If the global recovery is undermined by downside risks and the recent economic downturn returns, governments may turn to trade barriers to protect their domestic industries against foreign imports, thereby depressing the demand for shipping. Specifically, increasing trade protectionism in the markets that our charterers serve may cause (i) a decrease in cargoes available to our charterers in favor of Chinese charterers and Chinese owned ships and (ii) an increase in the risks associated with importing goods to China. Any increased trade barriers or restrictions on trade, especially trade with China, would have an adverse impact on our charterers’ business, operating results and financial condition and could thereby affect their ability to make timely charter hire payments to us and to renew and increase the number of their time charters with us. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders.

We are focused on employing vessels on long-term charters and we may have difficulties in doing so if a more active short-term or spot market develops.

One of our principal strategies is to enter into long-term charters, although we believe it is impractical to determine the typical charter length for vessels in our sectors due to factors such as market dynamics, charter strategy and the private nature of charter agreements. If a market for long-term time charters in the sectors in which we operate does not develop, we may have increased difficulty entering into long-term time charters upon expiration or early termination of the time charters for our vessels. As a result, our revenues and cash flows may become more volatile. In addition, an active short-term or spot charter market may require us to enter into charters based on changing market prices, as opposed to contracts based on fixed rates, which could result in a decrease in our revenues and cash flows, including cash available for distribution to unitholders, if we enter into charters during periods when the market price for shipping dry cargoes is depressed or these markets become depressed during the period of any adjustable rate charter.

5

Our growth depends on our ability to expand relationships with existing customers and obtain new customers, for which we will face substantial competition.

Long-term time charters have the potential to provide income at pre-determined rates over more extended periods of time. However, the process for obtaining longer term time charters is highly competitive and generally involves a lengthy, intensive and continuous screening and vetting process and the submission of competitive bids that often extends for several months. In addition to the quality, age and suitability of the vessel, longer term shipping contracts tend to be awarded based upon a variety of other factors relating to the vessel operator, including:

It is likely that we will face substantial competition for long-term charter business from a number of experienced companies. We may not be able to compete profitably as we expand our business into new geographic regions or provide new services. New markets may require different skills, knowledge or strategies than we use in our current markets. Many of these competitors have significantly greater financial resources than we do. It is also likely that we will face increased numbers of competitors entering into our transportation sectors, including in the containership and drybulk sector. Many of these competitors have strong reputations and extensive resources and experience. Increased competition may cause greater price competition, especially for long-term charters.

As a result of these factors, we may be unable to expand our relationships with existing customers or obtain new customers for long-term charters on a profitable basis, if at all. However, even if we are successful in employing our vessels under longer term charters, our vessels will not be available for trading in the spot market during an upturn in the dry cargo market cycle, when spot trading may be more profitable. If we cannot successfully employ our vessels in profitable time charters our results of operations and operating cash flow could be adversely affected.

As we expand our business, we may have difficulty managing our growth, which could increase expenses.

We intend to seek to grow our fleet, either through purchases, the increase of the number of chartered-in vessels or through the acquisitions of businesses. The addition of vessels to our fleet or the acquisition of new businesses will impose significant additional responsibilities on our management. We will also have to increase our customer base to provide continued employment for the new vessels. Our growth will depend on our success in locating and acquiring suitable vessels, identifying and consummating acquisitions or joint ventures, integrating any acquired business successfully with our existing operations, enhancing our customer base, managing our expansion, and obtaining required financing.

Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel, and managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures, and we may not be successful in executing our growth plans. We may incur significant expenses and losses in connection therewith or that our acquisitions will perform as expected, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

6

We may be unable to make or realize expected benefits from acquisitions, and implementing our growth strategy through acquisitions may harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our growth strategy focuses on a gradual expansion of our fleet. Any acquisition of a vessel may not be profitable to us at or after the time we acquire it and may not generate cash flow sufficient to justify our investment. We may also fail to realize anticipated benefits of our growth, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings or cash flow enhancements, or we may be unable to hire, train or retain qualified shore and seafaring personnel to manage and operate our growing business and fleet.

Our growth strategy could decrease our liquidity by using a significant portion of our available cash or borrowing capacity to finance acquisitions. To the extent that we incur additional debt to finance acquisitions, it could significantly increase our interest expense or financial leverage. We may also incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges.

Additionally, the marine transportation and logistics industries are capital intensive, traditionally using substantial amounts of indebtedness to finance vessel acquisitions, capital expenditures and working capital needs. If we finance the purchase of our vessels through the issuance of debt securities, it could result in:

In addition, our business plan and strategy is predicated on buying vessels at what we believe is near the low end of the cycle in what has typically been a cyclical industry. However, charter rates and vessel asset values may sink lower, and shipping costs or vessel asset values may not increase in the near-term or at all.

Delays in deliveries of secondhand vessels, our decision to cancel an order for purchase of a vessel or our inability to otherwise complete the acquisitions of additional vessels for our fleet, could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect to purchase secondhand vessels from time to time. The delivery of these vessels could be delayed, not completed or cancelled, which would delay or eliminate our expected receipt of revenues from the employment of these vessels. The seller could fail to deliver these vessels to us as agreed, or we could cancel a purchase contract because the seller has not met its obligations.

If the delivery of any vessel is materially delayed or cancelled, especially if we have committed the vessel to a charter for which we become responsible for substantial liquidated damages to the customer as a result of the delay or cancellation, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

If we purchase any newbuilding vessels, delays, cancellations or non-completion of deliveries of newbuilding vessels could harm our operating results.

If we purchase any newbuilding vessels, the shipbuilder could fail to deliver the newbuilding vessel as agreed or their counterparty could cancel the purchase contract if the shipbuilder fails to meet its obligations. In addition, under charters that are related to a newbuilding, delays in our delivery of the newbuilding to our customer could result in liquidated damages payable to the customer. For prolonged delays, the customer may terminate the charter and, in addition to the resulting loss of revenues, we may be responsible for additional, substantial liquidated damages. We do not derive any revenue from a vessel until after its delivery and will be required to pay substantial sums as progress payments during construction of a newbuilding. While we expect to have refund guarantees from financial institutions with respect to such progress payments in the event the vessel is not delivered by the shipyard or is otherwise not accepted by us, there is the potential that we may not be able to collect all portion of such refund guarantees, in which case we would lose the amounts of monies we have advanced to the shipyards for such progress payments.

7

The completion and delivery of newbuildings could be delayed, cancelled or otherwise not completed because of:

If delivery of a vessel is materially delayed, it could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.

We rely on the master limited partnership (“MLP”) structure and its appeal to investors for accessing debt and equity markets to finance our growth and repay or refinance our debt. The depressed trading price of our common units may affect our ability to access capital markets and, as a result, our ability to pay distributions or repay our debt.

We rely on the master limited partnership (“MLP”) structure and its appeal to investors for accessing debt and equity markets to finance our growth and repay or refinance our debt.

We rely on our ability to raise capital in the equity and debt markets to grow our fleet and to refinance our debt. A protracted deterioration in the valuation of our common units would increase our cost of capital, make any equity issuance significantly dilutive and may affect our ability to access capital markets and, as a result, our capacity to pay distributions to our unitholders and refinance or repay our debt.

The loss of a customer, charter or vessel could result in a loss of revenues and cash flow in the event we are unable to replace such customer, charter or vessel.

For the year ended December 31, 2018, HMM represented approximately 24.5% of total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2017, HMM and Yang Ming accounted for approximately 26.8% and 12.0%, respectively, of our total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2016, HMM, Yang Ming and Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. accounted for 29.6%, 13.0% and 11.6%, respectively, of our total revenues. No other customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues for any of the years presented.

The charterers in the containership sector consist of a limited number of liner companies. The combination of any surplus of containership capacity and the expected increase in the size of the world containership fleet over the next few years may make it difficult to secure substitute employment for any of our containerships if our counterparties fail to perform their obligations under the currently arranged time charters, and any new charter arrangements we are able to secure may be at lower rates. Furthermore, the surplus of containerships available at lower charter rates and lack of demand for our customers’ liner services could negatively affect our charterers’ willingness to perform their obligations under our time charters, which in many cases provide for charter rates significantly above current market rates. We expect that a limited number of leading liner companies will continue to generate a substantial portion of our revenues. The cessation of business with these liner companies or their failure to fulfill their obligations under the time charters for our containerships could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

8

Our customers may go bankrupt or fail to perform their obligations under the contracts, they may delay payments or suspend payments altogether, they may terminate the contracts prior to the agreed-upon expiration date or they may attempt to renegotiate the terms of the contracts. For example, in 2016, HMM faced financial difficulties and developed a restructuring plan, which included restructuring agreements for five of our container vessels (see Note 19 — Notes Receivable). In addition, Navios Partners has filed claims for lost revenues in connection with the 2016 filing by Hanjin for rehabilitation, which was later followed by entry into liquidation in 2017. These claims are currently being assessed by the court.

The failure of a customer to perform its obligations under a contract may mean we increase our exposure to the spot market, which is subject to greater rate fluctuation than the time charter market.

If we receive lower rates under replacement contracts or are unable to re-employ all of our vessels, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

The aging of our vessels may result in increased operating costs in the future, which could adversely affect our earnings.

As of April 8, 2019, the vessels in our fleet had an average age of approximately 10 years, when most dry cargo vessels have an expected life of approximately 25 years, and we may acquire older vessels in the future. Older vessels are typically more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. In some instances, charterers prefer newer vessels that are more fuel efficient than older vessels. Cargo insurance rates also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers as well. Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of the vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which these vessels may engage. We cannot assure you that as our vessels age, market conditions will justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives. If we sell vessels, we may have to sell them at a loss, and if charterers no longer charter out vessels due to their age, it could materially adversely affect our earnings.

Vessels may suffer damage and we may face unexpected drydocking costs, which could affect our cash flow and financial condition.

If our owned vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs that insurance does not cover. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, could decrease our revenues and earnings substantially, particularly if a number of vessels are damaged or drydocked at the same time. Under the terms of the Management Agreement with the Manager, the costs of drydocking repairs are not included in the daily management fee, but are be reimbursed at cost upon occurrence.

In addition, we often purchase secondhand vessels that, unlike newbuilt vessels, typically do not carry warranties as to their condition, and our vessel inspections would not normally provide us with as much knowledge of a vessel’s condition as we would possess if it had been built for us and operated by us during its life. Repairs and maintenance costs for secondhand vessels are difficult to predict and may be substantially higher than for vessels we have operated since they were built. These costs could decrease our cash flows, liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to our unitholders.

The market value of our vessels, which has declined from historically high levels, may fluctuate significantly, which could cause us to breach covenants in our credit facilities and result in the foreclosure on our mortgaged vessels.

The factors that influence vessel values include:

9

If the market value of our owned vessels decreases, we may be required to record an impairment charge in our financial statements that, among other things, could cause us to breach covenants contained in our credit facilities, which could adversely affect our financial results. We purchased the majority of our drybulk vessels from Navios Holdings based on market prices that were, for certain vessels, at historically high levels. If we breach the covenants in our credit facilities and are unable to remedy any relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on the collateral, including our vessels. Any loss of vessels would significantly decrease our ability to generate positive cash flow from operations and therefore service our debt. If a charter expires or is terminated, we may be unable to re-charter the vessel at an acceptable rate and, rather than continue to incur costs to maintain the vessel, may seek to dispose of it. Our inability to dispose of a vessel at a reasonable price could result in a loss on its sale and could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, as well as our cash flows, including cash available for distributions to our unitholders.

Charter rates in the drybulk and container shipping industry have decreased from their historically high levels and may decrease further in the future, which may adversely affect our earnings and ability to pay dividends.

The current charter rates for dry cargo vessels have significantly decreased from their historic highs reached in the second quarter of 2008. If the drybulk shipping industry, which has been highly cyclical and volatile, is depressed in the future when our charters expire, our earnings and available cash flow may be adversely affected. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully charter our vessels in the future or renew our existing charters at rates sufficient to allow us to operate our business profitably, to meet our obligations, including payment of debt service to our lenders, or to pay dividends to our unitholders. Our ability to renew the charters on our vessels upon the expiration or termination of our current charters, or on vessels that we may acquire in the future, as well as, the charter rates payable under any replacement charters will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the sectors in which our vessels operate at that time, changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the transportation of commodities.

All of our drybulk time charters are scheduled to expire on dates ranging from March 2019 to September 2022. If, upon expiration or termination of these or other contracts, long-term recharter rates are lower than existing rates, particularly considering that we intend to enter into long-term charters, or if we are unable to obtain replacement charters, our earnings, cash flow and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders could be materially adversely affected.

The five containerships that we own are on long-term time charter for ten years until 2023 with our option to terminate after year seven. Our ability to re-charter our containerships upon the expiration or termination of their current time charters and the charter rates payable under any renewal options or replacement time charters will depend upon, among other things, the prevailing state of the containership charter market, which can be affected by consumer demand for products shipped in containers. If the charter market is depressed when our containerships’ time charters expire, we may be forced to re-charter our containerships at reduced or even unprofitable rates, or we may not be able to re-charter them at all, which may reduce or eliminate our earnings, make our earnings volatile, affect our ability to generate cash flows and maintain liquidity.

10

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet, which will reduce our cash available for distribution. In addition, each quarter our board of directors is required to deduct estimated maintenance and replacement capital expenditures from operating surplus, which may result in less or no cash available to unitholders than if actual maintenance and replacement capital expenditures were deducted.

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain, over the long term, the operating capacity of our fleet. These maintenance and replacement capital expenditures include capital expenditures associated with drydocking a vessel, modifying an existing vessel or acquiring a new vessel to the extent these expenditures are incurred to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet. These expenditures could increase as a result of changes in the cost of our labor and materials, the cost of suitable replacement vessels, customer/market requirements, increases in the size of our fleet, and governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards relating to safety, security or the environment.

Our significant maintenance and replacement capital expenditures, including without limitation the management fees paid to the Manager pursuant to the Management Agreement, may reduce or eliminate the amount of cash we have available for distribution to our unitholders. Our partnership agreement requires our board of directors to deduct estimated, rather than actual, maintenance and replacement capital expenditures from operating surplus each quarter in an effort to reduce fluctuations in operating surplus. The amount of estimated capital expenditures deducted from operating surplus is subject to review and change by the Conflicts Committee of our board of directors at least once a year. If our board of directors underestimates the appropriate level of estimated maintenance and replacement capital expenditures, we may have less, if any, cash available for distribution in future periods when actual capital expenditures begin to exceed previous estimates. For detailed information on the amount of management fees owed under the Management Agreement, please see the section entitled, “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects – A. Operating results – Management fees”.

Our debt levels may limit our ability to obtain additional financing and pursue other business opportunities, and our interest rates under our credit facilities may fluctuate and may impact our operations.

As of December 31, 2018, the total borrowings, net of unamortized discount, under our credit facilities amounted to $512.4 million. We have the ability to incur additional debt, subject to limitations in our credit facilities. Our level of debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

Our ability to service our debt depends upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. Our ability to service debt under our credit facilities also will depend on market interest rates, since the interest rates applicable to our borrowings will fluctuate with the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), or the prime rate. We do not currently hedge against increases in such rates and, accordingly, significant increases in such rate would require increased debt levels and reduce distributable cash. We may not be able to refinance all or part of our maturing debt on favorable terms, or at all. If our operating income is not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing or discontinuing distributions, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our debt, or seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.

11

We are exposed to volatility in the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, which can affect our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

The loans under our credit facilities are generally advanced at a floating rate based on LIBOR, which was volatile in prior years and has been steadily increasing in recent years. LIBOR can affect the amount of interest payable on our debt, which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our earnings and cash flow. In addition, although in recent years LIBOR has been at relatively low levels, LIBOR increased during 2016 and may continue to rise in the future as the current low interest rate environment comes to an end.

Our financial condition could be materially adversely affected as we have not entered into interest rate hedging arrangements to hedge our exposure to the interest rates applicable to our credit facilities and may not enter into interest rate hedging arrangements for these or any other financing arrangements we may enter into in the future, including those we may enter into to finance a portion of the amounts payable with respect to newbuildings or acquisitions.

We may enter into derivative contracts to hedge our overall exposure to interest rate risk. Entering into swaps and other derivatives transactions is inherently risky and presents possibilities for incurring significant expenses. The derivatives strategies that we may employ may not be successful or effective, and we could, as a result, incur substantial additional interest and breakage costs.

Changes in the method of determining LIBOR, or the replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate, may adversely affect interest expense related to outstanding debt.

Our outstanding debt bears interest rates in relation to LIBOR. On July 27, 2017, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to phase out LIBOR by the end of 2021. It is unclear if at that time whether or not LIBOR will cease to exist or if new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021. The U.S. Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a steering committee comprised of large U.S. financial institutions, is considering replacing U.S. dollar LIBOR with a new index calculated by short-term repurchase agreements, backed by Treasury securities (“SOFR”). SOFR is observed and backward looking, which stands in contrast with LIBOR under the current methodology, which is an estimated forward-looking rate and relies, to some degree, on the expert judgment of submitting panel members. Whether or not SOFR attains market traction as a LIBOR replacement tool remains in question. As such, the future of LIBOR at this time is uncertain. If LIBOR ceases to exist, we may need to renegotiate our credit agreements that utilize LIBOR as a factor in determining the interest rate.

In addition, lenders have recently insisted on provisions that entitle the lenders, in their discretion, to replace published LIBOR as the base for the interest calculation with their cost-of-funds rate. Such provisions could significantly increase our lending costs, which would have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

Our credit facilities contain restrictive covenants, which may limit our business and financing activities and may prevent us from paying distributions to unitholders, if our board of directors determines to do so again in the future.

We have two credit facilities with DVB Bank S.E. (the “DVB Credit Facility” and the “DVB $44m Credit Facility”), a term loan facility (the “Term Loan B Facility”), a credit facility with BNP PARIBAS (the “BNP Credit Facility”) and a credit facility with Nordea Bank AB, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB and NIBC Bank N.V. (the “March 2018 Credit Facility”). We have two sale and leaseback agreements with unrelated third parties for the Navios Fantastiks and the Navios Beaufiks. As of December 31, 2018, the outstanding loan balance under Navios Partners’ credit facilities, net of deferred finance fees and discounts, was $507.5 million.

We also have three credit facilities with DNB Bank ASA (the “April 2019 Credit Facility”), DVB Bank S.E. (the “February 2019 Credit Facility”) and NIBC Bank N.V. (the “December 2018 Credit Facility”). No amount has been drawn yet under these facilities.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our credit facilities and any future credit facilities could adversely affect our ability to finance future operations or capital needs to engage, expand or pursue our business activities and reduce cash available for distribution on our common units. For example, our credit facilities require the consent of our lenders or limit our ability to (among other things):

12

Our credit facilities also require us to comply with the International Safety Management Code (the “ISM Code”), and International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (“ISPS Code”) and to maintain valid safety management certificates and documents of compliance at all times.

The credit facilities require compliance with a number of financial covenants, including: (i) maintain a required security amount ranging over 120% to 140%; (ii) minimum free consolidated liquidity in an amount equal to at least $650 per owned vessel; (iii) maintain a ratio of EBITDA to interest expense of at least 2.00:1.00; (iv) maintain a ratio of total liabilities or total debt to total assets (as defined in our credit facilities) ranging of less than 0.75; and (v) maintain a minimum net worth to $135.0 million.

The Financial Liabilities have no financial covenants.

It is an event of default under the credit facilities if such covenants are not complied with in accordance with the terms and subject to the prepayments or cure provisions of the facilities.

The Term Loan B facility is secured by first priority mortgages covering certain vessels owned by subsidiaries of Navios Partners, in addition to other collateral, and guaranteed by each subsidiary of Navios Partners.

The Term Loan B Facility requires maintenance of a loan to value ratio of 0.8 to 1.0, and other restrictive covenants customary for facilities of this type (subject to negotiated exceptions and baskets), including restrictions on indebtedness, liens, acquisitions and investments, restricted payments and dispositions. The Term Loan B Facility also provides for customary events of default, prepayment and cure provisions.

In addition, our credit facilities prohibit the payment of distributions if we are not in compliance with certain financial covenants or upon the occurrence of an event of default.

Events of default under our credit facilities include, among other things, the following:

Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions that are contained in our credit facilities and any other debt instruments we may enter into in the future may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be impaired. If we are in breach of any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in our credit facilities, especially if we trigger a cross default currently contained in certain of our loan agreements, a significant portion of our obligations may become immediately due and payable, and our lenders’ commitment to make further loans to us may terminate. We may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. In addition, our obligations under our credit facilities are secured by certain of our vessels, and if we are unable to repay borrowings under such credit facilities, lenders could seek to foreclose on those vessels. We anticipate that any subsequent refinancing of our current debt or any new debt will have similar restrictions.

13

We may be subject to litigation that, if not resolved in our favor or not sufficiently insured against, could have a material adverse effect on us.

We have been and may be, from time to time, involved in various litigation matters. These matters may include, among other things, contract disputes, personal injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, and other tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims for taxes or duties, and other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any claim or other litigation matter, and the ultimate outcome of any litigation or the potential costs to resolve them may have a material adverse effect on us. Insurance may not be applicable or sufficient in all cases and/or insurers may not remain solvent which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

The loss of key members of our senior management team could disrupt the management of our business.

We believe that our success depends on the continued contributions of the members of our senior management team, including Ms. Angeliki Frangou, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The loss of the services of Ms. Frangou or one of our other executive officers or those of Navios Holdings who provide us with significant managerial services could impair our ability to identify and secure new charter contracts, to maintain good customer relations and to otherwise manage our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance and our ability to compete.

The Manager acting on our behalf may be unable to attract and retain qualified, skilled employees or crew necessary to operate our business or may have to pay substantially increased costs for its employees and crew.

Our success will depend in part on the Manager’s ability to attract, hire, train and retain highly skilled and qualified personnel. In crewing our vessels, we require technically skilled employees with specialized training who can perform physically demanding work. Competition to attract, hire, train and retain qualified crew members is intense, and crew manning costs continue to increase. If we are not able to increase our hire rates to compensate for any crew cost increases, our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders may be adversely affected. Any inability we experience in the future to attract, hire, train and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees could impair our ability to manage, maintain and grow our business.

Because we generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars but incur a portion of our expenses in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could cause us to suffer exchange rate losses thereby increasing expenses and reducing income.

We engage in worldwide commerce with a variety of entities. Although our operations may expose us to certain levels of foreign currency risk, our transactions are at present predominantly U.S. dollar-denominated. Transactions in currencies other than the functional currency are translated at the exchange rate in effect on the date of each transaction. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the U.S. dollar falls in value can increase thereby decreasing our income or vice versa if the U.S. dollar increases in value. For example, as of December 31, 2018, the value of the U.S. dollar as compared to the Euro increased by approximately 4.7% compared with the respective value as of December 31, 2017. A greater percentage of our transactions and expenses in the future may be denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

Security breaches and disruptions to our information technology infrastructure could interfere with our operations and expose us to liability which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

In the ordinary course of business, we rely heavily on information technology networks and systems to process, transmit, and store electronic information, and to manage or support a variety of business processes and activities. Additionally, we collect and store certain data, including proprietary business information and customer and employee data, and may have access to other confidential information in the ordinary course of our business. Despite our cybersecurity measures, which includes active monitoring, training, reporting and other activities designed to protect and secure our data, our information technology networks and infrastructure may be vulnerable to damage, disruptions, or shutdowns due to attack by hackers or breaches, employee error or malfeasance, data leakage, power outages, computer viruses and malware, telecommunication or utility failures, systems failures, natural disasters, or other catastrophic events. Any such events could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability or penalties under privacy or other laws, disruption in operations, and damage to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

14

Increased competition in technology and innovation could reduce our charter hire income and the value of our vessels.

The charter hire rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed, fuel economy, loading and discharging speed and personnel required to operate. The potential introduction of autonomous vessels, which would significantly reduce or eliminate the costs of crew and victuals, could put our vessels at an efficiency disadvantage. Flexibility includes the ability to enter harbors, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. The length of a vessel’s physical life is related to its original design and construction, its maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new vessels are built that are more efficient or flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect the amount of charter hire payments that we receive for our vessels upon expiration of their current charters and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. This could adversely affect our revenues and cash flows, and our ability to service our debt or make distributions to our unit holders and repurchases of common units.

We may not have adequate insurance to compensate us if we lose our vessels or to compensate third parties.

There are a number of risks associated with the operation of ocean-going vessels, including mechanical failure, collision, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, loss of life, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities and labor strikes. Any of these events may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows. In addition, the operation of any vessel is subject to the inherent possibility of marine disaster.

Although we carry insurance for our fleet against risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators, including hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance and protection and indemnity insurance (which include environmental damage and pollution insurance), all risks may not be adequately insured against, and any particular claim may not be paid.

We do not currently maintain strike or off-hire insurance, which would cover the loss of revenue during extended vessel off-hire periods, such as those that occur during an unscheduled drydocking due to damage to the vessel from accidents except in cases of loss of hire up to a limited number of days due to war or a piracy event. Other events that may lead to off-hire periods include natural or man-made disasters that result in the closure of certain waterways and prevent vessels from entering or leaving certain ports. Accordingly, any extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders.

Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, we may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records, but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expenses to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, we cannot assure you that we will be able to renew our insurance policies on the same or commercially reasonable terms, or at all, in the future. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led in the past to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, protection and indemnity insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could harm our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. In addition, our insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain of our actions, such as our vessels failing to maintain certification with applicable maritime self-regulatory organizations. Further, we cannot assure you that our insurance policies will cover all losses that we incur, or that disputes over insurance claims will not arise with our insurance carriers. Any claims covered by insurance would be subject to deductibles, and since it is possible that a large number of claims may be brought, the aggregate amount of these deductibles could be material. In addition, our insurance policies are subject to limitations and exclusions, which may increase our costs or lower our revenues, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Navios Holdings, Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation (“Navios Acquisition”), Navios Maritime Midstream Partners L.P. (“Navios Midstream”), Navios Maritime Containers L.P. (“Navios Containers”) and their affiliates may compete with us.

Navios Partners has entered into an omnibus agreement with Navios Holdings (the “Partners Omnibus Agreement”) in connection with the closing of the Navios Partners’ IPO governing, among other things, Navios Holdings and its controlled affiliates (other than us, our general partner and our subsidiaries) generally agreed not to acquire or own Panamax or Capesize drybulk carriers under time charters of three or more years without the consent of an independent committee of Navios Holdings. The Omnibus Agreement, however, contains significant exceptions that allow Navios Holdings or any of its controlled affiliates to compete with us under

15

specified circumstances which could harm our business. In addition, concurrently with the successful consummation of the initial business combination by Navios Acquisition, on May 28, 2010, because of the overlap between Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and us, with respect to possible acquisitions under the terms of the Omnibus Agreement, we entered into a business opportunity right of first refusal agreement which provides the types of business opportunities in the marine transportation and logistics industries, we, Navios Holdings and Navios Acquisition must share with the each other.

In connection with the Navios Midstream initial public offering and effective November 18, 2014, Navios Partners entered into the Omnibus Agreement with Navios Midstream, Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings (the “Navios Midstream Omnibus Agreement”) pursuant to which Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and Navios Partners have agreed not to acquire or own any VLCCs, crude oil tankers, refined petroleum product tankers, LPG tankers or chemical tankers under time charters of five or more years and also providing rights of first offer on certain tanker vessels.

In connection with the 2017 Navios Containers private placement and listing on the Norwegian over-the-counter (“N-OTC”) market effective June 8, 2017, Navios Partners entered into an omnibus agreement with Navios Containers, Navios Holdings, Navios Acquisition and Navios Midstream (the “Navios Containers Omnibus Agreement”), pursuant to which Navios Partners, Navios Holdings, Navios Acquisition and Navios Midstream have granted to Navios Containers a right of first refusal over any container vessels to be sold or acquired in the future. The omnibus agreement contains significant exceptions that will allow Navios Partners, Navios Holdings, Navios Acquisition and Navios Midstream to compete with Navios Containers under specified circumstances.

Risks Relating in Our Industry

Charter hire rates are volatile and have declined significantly since their historic highs and may remain at low levels or decrease in the future, which may adversely affect our earnings, revenue and our profitability. The cyclical nature of the international shipping industry may lead to decreases in charter rates and lower vessel values.

The drybulk shipping industry is cyclical with attendant volatility in charter hire rates and profitability. The degree of charter hire rate volatility among different types of drybulk vessels has varied widely, and charter hire rates for drybulk vessels have declined significantly from historically high levels. For example, in the past time charter and spot market rates for drybulk vessels have declined below operating costs of vessels. The Baltic Dry Index, or BDI, an index published by the Baltic Exchange Limited of shipping rates for 19 key drybulk routes, fell 97% from a peak of 11,793 in May 2008 to a low of 290 in February 2016. While the BDI showed improvement since then, it has ranged from a low of 595 in February 2019 to a high of 1,774 in July 2018, it remains at low levels compared to historical highs and there can be no assurance that the drybulk charter market will not decline further.

The ocean-going container shipping industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates, profitability and, consequently, vessel values. According to industry data, containership charter rates peaked in 2005, with the Containership Timecharter Rate Index (a $/day per TEU weighted average of 6-12 month time charter rates of Panamax and smaller vessels (1993=100)) reaching 172 points in March and April 2005, and generally stayed above 100 points until the middle of 2008, when the effects of the economic crisis began to affect global container trade, driving the Containership Timecharter Rate Index to a 10-year low of 32 points in the period from November 2009 to January 2010. As of the end of January 2018, the Containership Timecharter Rate Index stood at 54 points, peaked at 68 as of the end of June 2018 and then fell to 50 at the end of January 2019.

Fluctuations in charter rates result from changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the major commodities carried by water internationally. Because the factors affecting the supply and demand for vessels are outside of our control and are unpredictable, the nature, timing, direction and degree of changes in charter rates are also unpredictable.

Furthermore, a significant decrease in charter rates would cause asset values to decline, and we may have to record an impairment charge in our consolidated financial statements which could adversely affect our financial results. Because the market value of our vessels may fluctuate significantly, we may also incur losses when we sell vessels, which may adversely affect our earnings. If we sell vessels at a time when vessel prices have fallen and before we have recorded an impairment adjustment to our financial statements, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying amount in our financial statements, resulting in a loss and a reduction in earnings.

Factors that influence demand for vessels capacity include:

16

The supply of vessel capacity has generally been influenced by, among other factors:

In addition to the prevailing and anticipated charter rates, factors that affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and laying-up include newbuilding prices, secondhand vessel values in relation to newbuilding and scrap prices, costs of bunkers and other operating costs, costs associated with classification society surveys, normal maintenance and insurance coverage costs, the efficiency and age profile of the existing drybulk fleet in the market and government and industry regulation of maritime transportation practices, particularly environmental protection laws and regulations. These and other factors influencing the supply of and demand for shipping capacity are outside of our control, and we may not be able to correctly assess the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions.

We anticipate that the future demand for our vessels will be dependent upon economic growth in the world’s economies, mainly China and India, seasonal and regional changes in demand, changes in the capacity of the global dry fleet and the sources and supply of drybulk cargo to be transported by sea.

17

The oversupply of drybulk vessel capacity may continue to prolong or further depress the current low charter rates, which has and may continue to limit our ability to operate our drybulk vessels profitably.

The market supply of drybulk carriers has been increasing as a result of the delivery of numerous newbuilding orders over the last few years. Newbuildings have been delivered in significant numbers over the last few years and, as of April 1, 2019, newbuilding orders had been placed for an aggregate of about 11% of the existing global drybulk fleet, with deliveries expected during the next three years. Due to lack of financing, many analysts expect significant cancellations and/or slippage of newbuilding orders. While vessel supply will continue to be affected by the delivery of new vessels and the removal of vessels from the global fleet, either through scrapping or accidental losses, an over-supply of drybulk carrier capacity could exacerbate decreases in charter rates or prolong the period during which low charter rates prevail which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

An oversupply of containership capacity may depress charter rates, as has happened in the past, or prolong the period of depressed charter rates, and adversely affect our ability to charter our containerships at profitable rates, or at all.

From 2005 through 2010, the containership orderbook was at historically high levels as a percentage of the in-water fleet reaching a high of 61% in November 2007, according to industry data. Since that time, deliveries of previously ordered containerships increased substantially and ordering momentum slowed somewhat with the total orderbook declining as a percentage of the existing fleet from 21% in October 2015 to an all-time low of 12% as of September 2018. As of the beginning of April the ratio stood at approximately 13%. The orderbook remains significantly skewed towards vessels over 8,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (“TEU”). An oversupply of large newbuilding vessel and/or re-chartered containership capacity entering the market, combined with any decline in the demand for containerships, may prolong or further depress current charter rates and may decrease our ability to charter our containerships when we are seeking new or replacement charters other than for unprofitable or reduced rates, or we may not be able to charter our containerships at all.

A number of third party owners have ordered so-called “eco-type” vessel designs, which may offer substantial bunker savings as compared to older designs. Increased demand for and supply of “eco-type” vessels could reduce demand for our vessels that are not classified as such and expose us to lower vessel utilization and/or decreased charter rates.

New eco-type vessel designs purport to offer material bunker savings compared to older designs, including certain of our vessels. Such savings could result in a substantial reduction of bunker cost for charterers compared to such vessels of ours. Such savings may also increase as a result of the International Maritime Organization (the “IMO”) 0.5% sulphur limitations on marine fuels due to come into force on January 1, 2020, which may increase the cost of fuels that meet these limits. As the supply of such “eco-type” vessel increases and if charterers prefer such vessels over our vessels that are not classified as such, this may reduce demand for our non-“eco-type” vessels, impair our ability to re-charter such vessels at competitive rates and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

If we expand the size of our fleet in the future, we generally will be required to make significant installment payments for acquisitions of vessels even prior to their delivery and generation of revenue. Depending on whether we finance our expenditures through cash from operations or by issuing debt or equity securities, our ability to make cash distributions to unitholders, to the extent we are making distributions, may be diminished or our financial leverage could increase or our unitholders could be diluted.

The actual cost of a vessel varies significantly depending on the market price, the size and specifications of the vessel, governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards. If we purchase additional vessels in the future, we generally will be required to make installment payments prior to their delivery. If we finance these acquisition costs by issuing debt or equity securities, we will increase the aggregate amount of interest payments or distributions, to the extent we are making distributions, prior to generating cash from the operation of the vessel.

To fund the remaining portion of these and other capital expenditures, we will be required to use cash from operations or raise capital through the sale of debt or additional equity securities. Use of cash from operations may reduce or eliminate cash available for distributions to unitholders. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Our failure to obtain the funds for necessary future capital expenditures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and on our ability to make cash distributions. Even if we successfully obtain necessary funds, the terms of such financings could limit our ability to pay cash distributions to unitholders. In addition, incurring additional debt may significantly increase our interest expense and financial leverage, and issuing additional preferred and common equity securities may result in significant unitholder dilution and would increase the aggregate amount of cash required to make distributions to our common unitholders, to the extent we are making distributions, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to make cash distributions to all of our unitholders.

18

We are subject to various laws, regulations and conventions, including environmental and safety laws, that could require significant expenditures both to maintain compliance with such laws and to pay for any uninsured environmental liabilities, including any resulting from a spill or other environmental incident.

The shipping business and vessel operation are materially affected by government regulation in the form of international conventions, national, state and local laws, and regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration, such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, the International Convention for Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and The Offshore Petroleum Licensing (Offshore Safety Directive) Regulations 2015. Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards, as well as compliance with standards imposed by maritime self-regulatory organizations and customer requirements or competition, may require us to make capital and other expenditures. Because such conventions, laws and regulations are often revised, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with such conventions, laws and regulations, or the impact thereof on the fair market price or useful life of our vessels. In order to satisfy any such requirements, we may be required to take any of our vessels out of service for extended periods of time, with corresponding losses of revenues. In the future, market conditions may not justify these expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels, particularly older vessels, profitably during the remainder of their economic lives. This could lead to significant asset write downs. In addition, violations of environmental and safety regulations can result in substantial penalties and, in certain instances, seizure or detention of our vessels.

Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business, require capital expenditures or otherwise increase our cost of doing business, which may materially adversely affect our operations, as well as the shipping industry generally. For example, in various jurisdictions, legislation has been enacted, or is under consideration, that would impose more stringent requirements on air pollution and effluent discharges from our vessels, such as the amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that are imposed by the IMO from time to time.

In addition, certain jurisdictions have adopted more stringent requirements compared to other regulatory authorities. For instance, California has adopted more stringent low sulfur fuel requirements within California-regulated waters. Compliance with new emissions standards could require modifications to vessels or the use of more expensive fuel. While it is unclear how new emissions standards will affect the employment of our vessels, over time it is possible that ships not retrofitted to comply with new standards may become less competitive. In addition, the IMO, the United States and states within the United States have proposed or implemented requirements relating to the management of ballast water to prevent the harmful effects of foreign invasive species.

Criminal liability for a pollution incident could not only result in us incurring substantial penalties or fines, but may also, in some jurisdictions, facilitate civil liability claims for greater compensation than would otherwise have been payable. We maintain insurance coverage for each owned vessel in our fleet against pollution liability risks in the amount of $1.0 billion in the aggregate for any one event. The insured risks include penalties and fines as well as civil liabilities and expenses resulting from accidental pollution. However, this insurance coverage is subject to exclusions, deductibles and other terms and conditions, and we cannot be certain that liabilities or expenses will not fall within an exclusion from coverage, or that damages from a catastrophic incident will not exceed the aggregate liability of $1.0 billion for any one event. Our cash flow, profitability and financial position would be adversely impacted.

The operation of vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the ISM Code and to national and international laws governing pollution from such vessels.

For more information on these international regulations that affect our business, please see the section entitled, “Item 4. Information on the Partnership—B. Business Overview—Regulation”.

In addition, the IMO, the United States and states within the United States have proposed or implemented requirements relating to the management of ballast water to prevent the harmful effects of foreign invasive species. In February 2004, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”). The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits, as well as other obligations including recordkeeping requirements and implementation of a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan. The BWM convention entered into force on September 8, 2017. As of February 11, 2019, the BWM Convention had 79 contracting states for 80.94% of world gross tonnage. New ships constructed after September 8, 2017 must comply on delivery with the BWM Convention. For vessels constructed prior to September 8, 2017, installation of ballast water management systems must take place at the first renewal survey following September 8, 2017 (the date the BWM Convention entered into force). Ships built before September 8, 2017 must comply with IMO discharge standards by the due date for their IOPPC renewal survey under MARPOL Annex 1. All ships must meet the IMO ballast water discharge standard by September 8, 2024. The BWM Convention requires ships to manage ballast water in a manner that removes, renders harmless or avoids the update or discharge of aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediment. Recently updated Ballast Water

19

and Sediment Management Plan guidance includes more robust testing and performance specifications. The entry of the BWM Convention and revised guidance, as well as similar ballast water treatment requirements in certain jurisdictions (such as the United States and states within the United States), will likely result in substantial compliance costs relating to the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged and other additional ballast water management and reporting requirements. In the United States, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) was signed into law on December 4, 2018, which requires the U.S. Coast Guard to address the regulation of discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels into navigable waters, including management of ballast water. This change is expected to result in a simplification of the current patch-work state of ballast water regulation in the United States, which is currently variably regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the various states.

We operate a fleet of dry cargo vessels that are subject to national and international laws governing pollution from such vessels. Several international conventions impose and limit pollution liability from vessels. An owner of a tanker vessel carrying a cargo of “persistent oil” as defined by the International Convention for Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (the “CLC”) is subject under the convention to strict liability for any pollution damage caused in a contracting state by an escape or discharge from cargo or bunker tanks. This liability is subject to a financial limit calculated by reference to the tonnage of the ship, and the right to limit liability may be lost if the spill is caused by the ship owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Liability may also be incurred under the CLC for a bunker spill from the vessel even when she is not carrying such cargo, but is in ballast.

When a tanker is carrying clean oil products that do not constitute “persistent oil” that would be covered under the CLC, liability for any pollution damage will generally fall outside the CLC and will depend on other international conventions or domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs. The same principle applies to any pollution from the vessel in a jurisdiction which is not a party to the CLC. The CLC applies in over 100 jurisdictions around the world, but it does not apply in the United States, where the corresponding liability laws such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the “OPA”) discussed below, are particularly stringent.

For vessel operations not covered by the CLC, including those operated under our fleet, at present, international liability for oil pollution is governed in part by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the “Bunker Convention”). In 2001, the IMO adopted the Bunker Convention, which imposes strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage and response costs incurred in contracting states caused by discharges, or threatened discharges, of bunker oil from all classes of ships not covered by the CLC. The Bunker Convention also requires registered owners of ships over a certain size to maintain insurance to cover their liability for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime, including liability limits calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, as amended (the “1976 Convention”), discussed in more detail in the following paragraph. The Bunker Convention became effective in contracting states on November 21, 2008, and, as of February 11, 2019, had 91 contracting states, representing 92.85% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet. In non-contracting states, liability for such bunker oil pollution typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs.

The CLC and Bunker Convention also provide vessel owners a right to limit their liability, depending on the applicable national or international regime. The CLC includes its own liability limits. The 1976 Convention is the most widely applicable international regime limiting maritime pollution liability. Rights to limit liability under the 1976 Convention are forfeited where a spill is caused by a ship owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Certain jurisdictions have ratified the IMO’s Protocol of 1996 to the 1976 Convention, referred to herein as the “Protocol of 1996.” The Protocol of 1996 provides for substantially higher liability limits in those jurisdictions than the limits set forth in the 1976 Convention. Finally, some jurisdictions, such as the United States, are not a party to either the 1976 Convention or the Protocol of 1996, and, therefore, a ship owner’s rights to limit liability for maritime pollution in such jurisdictions may be uncertain.

Environmental legislation in the United States merits particular mention as it is in many respects more onerous than international laws, representing a high-water mark of regulation with which ship owners and operators must comply, and of liability likely to be incurred in the event of non-compliance or an incident causing pollution.

Though it has been several years since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (the “Deepwater Horizon incident”), such regulation may become even stricter because of the incident’s impact. In the United States, the OPA establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from cargo and bunker oil spills from vessels, including tankers. The OPA covers all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Under the OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or substantial threats of discharges, of oil from their vessels. In response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil incident in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. House of Representatives passed and the U.S. Senate considered but did not pass a bill to strengthen certain requirements of the OPA; similar legislation may be introduced in the future. Further, under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and

20

similar state laws, investigation and cleanup requirements for threatened or actual releases of hazardous substances may be imposed upon owners and operators of vessels, on a joint and several basis, regardless of fault or the legality of the original activity that resulted in the release of hazardous substances

In addition to potential liability under the federal OPA and CERCLA, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred. For example, California regulations prohibit the discharge of oil, require an oil contingency plan be filed with the state, require that the ship owner contract with an oil response organization and require a valid certificate of financial responsibility, all prior to the vessel entering state waters.

In recent years, the European Union has become increasingly active in the field of regulation of maritime safety and protection of the environment. In some areas of regulation the European Union has introduced new laws without attempting to procure a corresponding amendment to international law. Notably, in 2005 the European Union adopted a directive, as amended in 2009, on ship-source pollution, imposing criminal sanctions for pollution not only where pollution is caused by intent or recklessness (which would be an offence under MARPOL), but also where it is caused by “serious negligence.” The concept of “serious negligence” may be interpreted in practice to be little more than ordinary negligence. The directive could therefore result in criminal liability being incurred in circumstances where it would not be incurred under international law.

In response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, the EU issued “Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 12, 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations.” Implemented on July 19, 2015, the objective of this Directive is to reduce as far as possible the occurrence of major accidents relating to offshore oil and gas operations and to limit their consequences, thus increasing the protection of the marine environment and coastal economies against pollution, establishing minimum conditions for safe offshore exploration and exploitation of oil and gas and limiting possible disruptions to Union indigenous energy production, and to improve the response mechanisms in case of an accident. As far as the environment is concerned, the UK has various regulations such as: the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Offshore Safety Directive) (Environmental Functions) Regulations 2015 (OSDEF), the 2015 amendments to the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention) Regulations 1998 (OPRC 1998) and other environmental Directive requirements, specifically the Environmental Management System. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing (Offshore Safety Directive) Regulations 2015 will implement the licensing Directive requirements.

Climate change and government laws and regulations related to climate change could negatively impact our financial condition.

We are and will be, directly and indirectly, subject to the effects of climate change and may, directly or indirectly, be affected by government laws and regulations related to climate change. A number of countries have adopted or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen oxides. In the U.S., the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has declared greenhouse gases to be dangerous pollutants and has issued greenhouse gas reporting requirements for emissions sources in certain industries (which currently do not include the shipping industry). The EPA does require owners of vessels subject to MARPOL Annex VI to maintain records for nitrogen oxides standards and in-use fuel specifications.

In addition, while the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “UNFCCC”), which requires adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the IMO intends to develop limits on greenhouse gases from international shipping. It has responded to the global focus on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions by developing specific technical and operational efficiency measures and a work plan for market-based mechanisms in 2011. These include the mandatory measures of under the ISM Code, and an energy efficiency design index (“EEDI”) for new ships. The IMO is also considering its position on market-based measures through an expert working group. Among the numerous proposals being considered by the working group are the following: a port state levy based on the amount of fuel consumed by the vessel on its voyage to the port in question; a global emissions trading scheme which would allocate emissions allowances and set an emissions cap; and an international fund establishing a global reduction target for international shipping, to be set either by the UNFCCC or the IMO.

At its 68th session (2015), the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (the “MEPC”) amended the 2014 Guidelines on EEDI survey and certification as well as the method of calculating of EEDI for new ships, the latter of which was again amended at the 70th session (2016). At its 70th session, the MEPC also adopted mandatory requirements for ships of 5,000 gross tonnage or greater to collect fuel consumption data for each type of fuel used, and report the data to the flag State after the end of each calendar year. At the 72nd MEPC session (April 2018), the committee adopted the goal of reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions from ships by at least 50% by 2050 as compared to 2008 levels, which if implemented could significantly increase operational costs associated with equipment upgrades and fuel costs.

21

In December 2011, UN climate change talks took place in Durban and concluded with an agreement referred to as the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The Durban Conference did not result in any proposals specifically addressing the shipping industry’s role in climate change but the progress that has been made by the IMO in this area was widely acknowledged throughout the negotiating bodies of the UNFCCC process, and an ad hoc working group was established.

Although regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the shipping industry was discussed during the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (the “Paris Conference”), the agreement reached among the 195 nations did not expressly reference the shipping industry. Following the Paris Conference, the IMO announced it would continue its efforts on this issue at the MEPC, and at its 70th session, the MEPC approved a Roadmap for developing a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy for ships, which includes the goal of adopting an initial strategy and emission reduction commitments in 2018. In April 2018, the IMO’s MEPC adopted the initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels, while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely, as a pathway towards greenhouse gas emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals. The initial strategy is due to be revised and adopted by 2023.

On August 3, 2017, the U.S. formally submitted a notice of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Thus far, no other nations have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, so it remains to be seen whether the withdrawal will significantly impact greenhouse gas developments moving forward. The United Nations’ Katowice Climate Change Conference occurred December 2-14, 2018. The key objective of the meeting was to begin adopting the implementation guidelines of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

The European Union announced in April 2007 that it planned to expand the European Union emissions trading scheme (“ETS”) by adding vessels, as ETS-regulated businesses required to report on carbon emissions and subject to a credit trading system for carbon allowances. A proposal from the European Commission (“EC”) was expected if no global regime for reduction of seaborne emissions had been agreed to by the end of 2011. On October 1, 2012, it announced that it would propose measures to monitor, verify and report on greenhouse-gas emissions from the shipping sector. On June 28, 2013, the EC adopted a communication setting out a strategy for progressively including greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport in the EU’s policy for reducing its overall GHG emissions. The first step proposed by the EC was an EU Regulation (as defined below) to an EU-wide system for the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from large ships starting in 2018. The EU Regulation (2015/757) was adopted on April 29, 2015 and took effect on July 1, 2015, with monitoring, reporting and verification requirements beginning on January 1, 2018. This Regulation appears to be indicative of an intent to maintain pressure on the international negotiating process. The EC also adopted an Implementing Regulation, which entered into force in November 2016, setting templates for monitoring plans, emissions reports and compliance documents pursuant to Regulation 2015/757.

In February 2017, European Union member states met to consider independently regulating the shipping industry under the ETS. On February 15, 2017, European Parliament voted in favor of a bill to include maritime shipping in the ETS by 2023 if the IMO has not promulgated a comparable system by 2021. In November 2017, the Council of Ministers, the European Union’s main decision making body, agreed that the European Union should act on shipping emissions by 2023 if the IMO fails to deliver effective global measures. In 2018, IMO’s urgent call to action to bring about shipping greenhouse gas emissions reductions before 2023 was met with industry push-back in many countries. Depending on how fast IMO and the European Union move on this issue, the ETS may result in additional compliance costs for our vessels.

We cannot predict with any degree of certainty what effect, if any possible climate change and government laws and regulations related to climate change will have on our operations, whether directly or indirectly. However, we believe that climate change, including the possible increase in severe weather events resulting from climate change, and government laws and regulations related to climate change may affect, directly or indirectly, (i) the cost of the vessels we may acquire in the future, (ii) our ability to continue to operate as we have in the past, (iii) the cost of operating our vessels, and (iv) insurance premiums, deductibles and the availability of coverage. As a result, our financial condition could be negatively impacted by significant climate change and related governmental regulation, and that impact could be material.

For more information on regulatory developments in response to growing concerns of greenhouse gas emissions, please see the section entitled, “Item 4. Information on the Partnership—B. Business Overview—Regulation—Greenhouse gas emissions”.

We are subject to vessel security regulations and we incur costs to comply with adopted regulations. We may be subject to costs to comply with similar regulations that may be adopted in the future in response to terrorism.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (the “MTSA”) came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (the “SOLAS”) created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect in July 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (the “ISPS Code”). Among the various requirements are:

22

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate (“ISSC”) that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. Starting January 1, 2016, the IMDG Code also included updates to the provisions for radioactive material, reflecting the latest provisions from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, new marking requirements for “overpack” and “salvage” and updates to various individual packing requirements. We will implement the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code and take measures for our vessels or vessels that we charter to attain compliance with all applicable security requirements within the prescribed time periods. Although management does not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations, there can be no assurance that there will not be an interruption in operations to bring vessels into compliance with the applicable requirements and any such interruption could cause a decrease in charter revenues. Furthermore, additional security measures could be required in the future that could have significant financial impact on us.

The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in recent years in the frequency and seriousness of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area. Attacks of this kind have commonly resulted in vessels and their crews being detained for several months, and being released only on payment of large ransoms. Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of such detention. Although we insure against these losses to the extent practicable, the risk remains of uninsured losses which could significantly affect our business. Costs are incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP3 industry standard. A number of flag states have signed the 2009 New York Declaration, which expresses commitment to Best Management Practices in relation to piracy and calls for compliance with them as an essential part of compliance with the ISPS Code.

Our international activities increase the compliance risks associated with economic and trade sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions.

Iran

Prior to January 2016, the scope of sanctions imposed against Iran, the government of Iran and persons engaging in certain activities or doing certain business with and relating to Iran was expanded by a number of jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union and Canada. In 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act (“CISADA”), which expanded the scope of the former Iran Sanctions Act. The scope of U.S. sanctions against Iran were expanded subsequent to CISADA by, among other U.S. laws, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (the “2012 NDAA”), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (“ITRA”), Executive Order 13662, and the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (“IFCA”). The foregoing laws, among other things, expanded the application of prohibitions to non-U.S. companies such as our company and to transactions with no U.S. nexus, and introduced limits on the ability of non-U.S. companies and other non-U.S. persons to do business or trade with Iran when such activities relate to specific activities such as investment in Iran, the supply or export of refined petroleum or refined petroleum products to Iran, the supply and delivery of goods to Iran which could enhance Iran’s petroleum or energy sectors, and the transportation of crude oil from Iran to countries which do not enjoy Iran crude oil sanctions waivers (our tankers called in Iran but did not engage in the prohibited activities specifically identified by these sanctions).

U.S. economic sanctions on Iran fall into two general categories: “Primary” sanctions, which prohibit U.S. persons or U.S. companies and their foreign branches, foreign owned or controlled subsidiaries, U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents, persons within the territory of the United States from engaging in all direct and indirect trade and other transactions with Iran without U.S. government authorization, and “secondary” sanctions, which are mainly nuclear-related sanctions. While most of the U.S. nuclear-related sanctions with respect to Iran (including, inter alia, CISADA, ITRA, and IFCA) and the EU sanctions on Iran were initially lifted on January 16, 2016 through the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) entered into between the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and Germany, there are still certain limitations under that sanctions framework in place with which we need to comply. The primary sanctions with which U.S. persons or transactions with a U.S. nexus must comply are still in force and have not been lifted or relaxed.

23

However, the following sanctions which were lifted under the JCPOA were reimposed (“snapped back”) on May 8, 2018 as a result of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA:

Following a 180-day wind-down period ending on November 4, 2018, the U.S. government will re-impose the following sanctions that were lifted pursuant to the JCPOA, including sanctions on associated services related to the activities below:

U.S. Iran sanctions also prohibit significant transactions with any individual or entity that the U.S. Government has designated as an Iran sanctions target.

EU sanctions remain in place in relation to the export of arms and military goods listed in the EU common military list, missiles-related goods and items that might be used for internal repression. The main nuclear-related EU sanctions which remain in place include restrictions on:

The above EU sanctions activities can only be engaged if prior authorization (granted on a case-by-case basis) is obtained. The remaining restrictions apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly to any Iranian person/for use in Iran, as well as the provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance in relation to the restricted activity. Certain individuals and entities remain sanctioned and the prohibition to make available, directly or indirectly, economic resources or assets to or for the benefit of sanctioned parties remains. “Economic resources” is widely defined and it remains prohibited to provide vessels for a fixture from which a sanctioned party (or parties related to a sanctioned party) directly or indirectly benefits. It is therefore still necessary to carry out due diligence on the parties and cargoes involved in fixtures involving Iran.

Russia/Ukraine

As a result of the crisis in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, both the U.S. and EU have implemented sanctions against certain Russian individuals and entities.

24

The EU has imposed travel bans and asset freezes on certain Russian persons and entities pursuant to which it is prohibited to make available, directly or indirectly, economic resources or assets to or for the benefit of the sanctioned parties. Certain Russian ports including Kerch Commercial Seaport; Sevastopol Commercial Seaport and Port Feodosia are subject to the above restrictions. Other entities are subject to sectoral sanctions which limit the provision of equity financing and loans to the listed entities. In addition, various restrictions on trade have been implemented which, amongst others, include a prohibition on the import into the EU of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol as well as restrictions on trade in certain dual-use and military items and restrictions in relation to various items of technology associated with the oil industry for use in deep water exploration and production, Arctic oil exploration and production or shale oil projects in Russia. As such, it is important to carry out due diligence on the parties and cargoes involved in fixtures relating to Russia.

The United States has imposed sanctions against certain designated Russian entities and individuals (“U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets”). These sanctions block the property and all interests in property of the U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets. This effectively prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in any economic or commercial transactions with the U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets unless the same are authorized by the U.S. Treasury Department. Similar to EU sanctions, U.S. sanctions also entail restrictions on certain exports from the United States to Russia and the imposition of Sectoral Sanctions which restrict the provision of equity and debt financing to designated Russian entities. While the prohibitions of these sanctions are not directly applicable to us, we have compliance measures in place to guard against transactions with U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets which may involve the United States or U.S. persons and thus implicate prohibitions. The United States also maintains prohibitions on trade with Crimea.

The U.S. has also taken a number of steps toward implementing aspects of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”), a major piece of sanctions legislation.

Under CAATSA, the U.S. has imposed secondary sanctions relating to Russia’s energy export pipelines, investments in special Russian crude oil projects. CAATSA has a provision that requires the U.S. President to sanction persons who knowingly engage in significant transactions with parties affiliated with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors.

Venezuela-Related Sanctions

The U.S. sanctions with respect to Venezuela prohibit dealings with designated Venezuelan government officials, and curtail the provision of financing to Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) and other government entities. EU sanctions against Venezuela are primarily governed by EU Council Regulation 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela. This includes financial sanctions and restrictions on listed persons and an, arms embargo and related prohibitions and restrictions including restrictions related to internal repression. In particular,

On August 24, 2017, by executive order 13808, the Trump Administration Imposed Additional Sanctions With Respect to Situation in Venezuela EO 13808 amended the Venezuela sanctions as follows:

Additionally, all transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, any digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela on or after January 9, 2018, are prohibited.

On January 25, 2019, Executive Order 13857 expanded the definition of “Government of Venezuela” to include persons that have acted, or have purported to act, on behalf of the Government of Venezuela, including members of the Maduro regime.

On January 28, 2019, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (i) designated PDVSA for operating in the oil sector of Venezuela; and (ii) issued eight new General Licenses.

25

Other U.S. Economic Sanctions Targets

In addition to Iran and certain Russian entities and individuals, as indicated above, the United States maintains economic sanctions against Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and sanctions against entities and individuals (such as entities and individuals in the foregoing targeted countries, designated terrorists, narcotics traffickers) whose names appear on the List of SDNs and Blocked Persons maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department (collectively, “Sanctions Targets”). We are subject to the prohibitions of these sanctions to the extent that any transaction or activity we engage in involves Sanctions Targets and a U.S. person or otherwise has a nexus to the United States.

Other E.U. Economic Sanctions Targets

The EU also maintains sanctions against Syria, North Korea and certain other countries and against individuals listed by the EU. These restrictions apply to our operations and as such, to the extent that these countries may be involved in any business it is important to carry out checks to ensure compliance with all relevant restrictions and to carry out due diligence checks on counterparties and cargoes.

Compliance

Considering the aforementioned prohibitions of U.S. as well as EU sanctions and the nature of our business, there is a sanctions risk for us due to the worldwide trade of our vessels, which we seek to minimise by the implementation of our corporate Sanctions policy and our compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations. Although we intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations, and the law may change. Moreover, despite, for example, relevant provisions in charter parties forbidding the use of our vessels in trade that would violate economic sanctions, our charterers may nevertheless violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation and be imputed to us.

In addition, given our relationship with Navios Holdings and its affiliates , we cannot give any assurance that an adverse finding against Navios Holdings and/or its affiliates by a governmental or legal authority or others with respect to the matters discussed herein or any future matter related to regulatory compliance by Navios Holdings and/or its affiliates will not have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation or the market price or trading of our common stock-units.

We are constantly monitoring developments in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions that maintain economic sanctions against Iran, other countries, and other sanctions targets, including developments in implementation and enforcement of such sanctions programs. Expansion of sanctions programs, embargoes and other restrictions in the future (including additional designations of countries and persons subject to sanctions), or modifications in how existing sanctions are interpreted or enforced, could prevent our vessels from calling in ports in sanctioned countries or could limit their cargoes. If any of the risks described above materialize, it could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

To reduce the risk of violating economic sanctions, we have a policy of compliance with applicable economic sanctions laws and have implemented and continue to implement and diligently follow compliance procedures to avoid economic sanctions violations.

26

We could be materially adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act and anti-corruption laws in other applicable jurisdictions.

As an international shipping company, we may operate in countries known to have a reputation for corruption. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the “FCPA”) and other anti-corruption laws and regulations in applicable jurisdictions generally prohibit companies registered with the SEC and their intermediaries from making improper payments to government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Under the FCPA, U.S. companies may be held liable for some actions taken by strategic or local partners or representatives. Legislation in other countries includes the U.K. Bribery Act 2010 (the “U.K. Bribery Act”) which is broader in scope than the FCPA because it does not contain an exception for facilitation payments. We and our customers may be subject to these and similar anti-corruption laws in other applicable jurisdictions. Failure to comply with legal requirements could expose us to civil and/or criminal penalties, including fines, prosecution and significant reputational damage, all of which could materially and adversely affect our business and the results of operations, including our relationships with our customers, and our financial results. Compliance with the FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act and other applicable anti-corruption laws and related regulations and policies imposes potentially significant costs and operational burdens on us. Moreover, the compliance and monitoring mechanisms that we have in place including our Code of Ethics and our anti-bribery and anti-corruption policy, may not adequately prevent or detect all possible violations under applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation. However, we believe that the procedures we have in place to prevent bribery are adequate and that they should provide a defense in most circumstances to a violation or a mitigation of applicable penalties, at least under the U.K.’s Bribery Act.

The operation of ocean-going vessels entails the possibility of marine disasters including damage or destruction of the vessel due to accident, the loss of a vessel due to piracy or terrorism, damage or destruction of cargo and similar events that may cause a loss of revenue from affected vessels and damage our business reputation, which may in turn lead to loss of business.

The operation of ocean-going vessels entails certain inherent risks that may materially adversely affect our business and reputation, including:

Any of these circumstances or events could substantially increase our costs. For example, the costs of replacing a vessel or cleaning up a spill could substantially lower our revenues by taking vessels out of operation permanently or for periods of time. The involvement of our vessels in a disaster or delays in delivery or damages or loss of cargo may harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel operator and cause us to lose business.

The operation of vessels, such as drybulk carriers, has certain unique risks. With a drybulk carrier, the cargo itself and its interaction with the vessel can be an operational risk. By their nature, drybulk cargoes are often heavy, dense, easily shifted, and react badly to water exposure. In addition, drybulk carriers are often subjected to battering treatment during unloading operations with grabs, jackhammers (to pry encrusted cargoes out of the hold) and small bulldozers. This treatment may cause damage to the vessel. Vessels damaged due to treatment during unloading procedures may be more susceptible to breach at sea. Hull breaches in drybulk carriers may lead to the flooding of the vessels’ holds. If a drybulk carrier suffers flooding in its forward holds, the bulk cargo may become so dense and waterlogged that its pressure may buckle the vessel’s bulkheads leading to the loss of a vessel.

The total loss or damage of any of our vessels or cargoes could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator. If we are unable to adequately maintain or safeguard our vessels, we may be unable to prevent any such damage, costs, or loss that could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to pay distributions.

Maritime claimants could arrest or attach one or more of our vessels, which could interrupt our cash flow.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo, and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages against such vessel. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of funds to have the arrest lifted. We are not currently aware of the existence of any such maritime lien on our vessels.

27

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel which is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another vessel in the fleet.

The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.

Our vessels may call in ports where smugglers may attempt to hide drugs and other contraband on vessels, with or without the knowledge of crew members. To the extent our vessels are found with contraband, whether inside or attached to the hull of our vessel and whether with or without the knowledge of any of our crew, we may face reputational damage and governmental or other regulatory claims or penalties, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition, as well as our cash flows, including cash available for distributions to our unitholders. Under some jurisdictions, vessels used for the conveyance of illegal drugs could result in forfeiture of the vessel to the government of such jurisdiction.

A failure to pass inspection by classification societies could result in one or more vessels being unemployable unless and until they pass inspection, resulting in a loss of revenues from such vessels for that period and a corresponding decrease in operating cash flows.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be inspected and approved by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and with SOLAS. Our owned fleet is currently enrolled with American Bureau of Shipping, Nippon Kaiji Kiokai, Bureau Veritas, DNVGL, and Lloyd’s Register.

A vessel must undergo an annual survey, an intermediate survey and a special survey. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Our vessels are on special survey cycles for hull inspection and continuous survey cycles for machinery inspection. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every two to three years for inspection of the underwater parts of such vessel.

If any vessel fails any annual survey, intermediate survey or special survey, the vessel may be unable to trade between ports and, therefore, would be unemployable, potentially causing a negative impact on our revenues due to the loss of revenues from such vessel until she is able to trade again. Further, if any vessel fails a classification survey and the condition giving rise to the failure is not cured within a reasonable time, the vessel may lose coverage under various insurance programs, including hull and machinery insurance and/or protection and indemnity insurance.

Increased inspection procedures and tighter import and export controls could increase costs and disrupt our business.

International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspections and related procedures in countries of origin and destination and trans-shipment points. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of contents of our vessels, delays in the loading, offloading, trans-shipment or delivery and the levying of customs, duties, fines or other penalties.

It is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. Furthermore, changes to inspection procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our future customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo uneconomical or impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Political and government instability, terrorist attacks, increased hostilities or war could lead to further economic instability, increased costs and disruption of our business.

We are an international company and primarily conduct our operations outside the United States. Changing economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we are engaged in business or where our vessels are registered will affect us. Terrorist attacks, such as the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 and the United States’ continuing response to these attacks, and in Paris on January 7, 2015 and on November 13, 2015, the bombings in Spain on March 11, 2004 and in Brussels on March 22, 2016, and the attacks in London on July 7, 2005, the recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and other current and future conflicts, and the continuing response of the United States to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks, continue to cause uncertainty in the world financial markets, including the energy markets. Continuing hostilities in the Middle East may lead to additional refugee flows, armed conflicts or to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbance in the United States or elsewhere, which could result in increased volatility and turmoil in the financial markets and may contribute further to economic instability. Current and

28

future conflicts and terrorist attacks may adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition, ability to raise capital and future growth. Terrorist attacks on vessels, such as the October 2002 attack on the M/V Limburg, a VLCC not related to us, may in the future also negatively affect our operations and financial condition and directly impact our vessels or our customers.

Furthermore, our operations may be adversely affected by changing or adverse political and governmental conditions in the countries where our vessels are flagged or registered and in the regions where we otherwise engage in business. Any disruption caused by these factors may interfere with the operation of our vessels, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our operations may also be adversely affected by expropriation of vessels, taxes, regulation, tariffs, trade embargoes, economic sanctions or a disruption of or limit to trading activities, or other adverse events or circumstances in or affecting the countries and regions where we operate or where we may operate in the future. Adverse economic, political, social or other developments can decrease demand and prospects for growth in the shipping industry and thereby could reduce revenue significantly.

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, resulting in a loss of earnings.

A government could requisition one or more of our vessels for title or for hire. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes its owner, while requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes its charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during periods of war or emergency, although governments may elect to requisition vessels in other circumstances. Although we may be entitled to compensation in the event of a requisition of one or more of our vessels the amount and timing of payment would be uncertain. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels have increased in frequency and magnitude, which could adversely affect our business.

The shipping industry has historically been affected by acts of piracy in regions such as the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Strait of Malacca, the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and the Red Sea. Although the frequency of sea piracy worldwide has decreased in recent years, sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden and towards the Mozambique Channel in the North Indian Ocean and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea. In January 2014, a vessel owned by our affiliate, Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation, the Nave Atropos, came under attack from a pirate action group in international waters off the coast of Yemen and in February 2016, the Nave Jupiter, a vessel also owned by Navios Acquisition, came under attack from pirate action groups on her way out from her loading terminal about 50NM off Bayelsa, Nigeria. In both instances, the crew and the on-board security team successfully implemented the counter piracy action plan and standard operating procedures to deter the attack with no consequences to the vessels or their crew. These piracy attacks resulted in regions (in which our vessels are deployed) being characterized by insurers as “war risk” zones or Joint War Committee “war and strikes” listed areas. Premiums payable for such insurance coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. Crew costs, including those due to employing onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. While the use of security guards is intended to deter and prevent the hijacking of our vessels, it could also increase our risk of liability for death or injury to persons or damage to personal property. In addition, while we believe the charterer remains liable for charter payments when a vessel is seized by pirates, the charterer may dispute this and withhold charter hire until the vessel is released. A charterer may also claim that a vessel seized by pirates was not “on-hire” for a certain number of days and it is therefore entitled to cancel the charter party, a claim that we would dispute. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, detention hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels could adversely affect our business and operations.

The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in recent years in the frequency and seriousness of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area. Attacks of this kind have commonly resulted in vessels and their crews being detained for several months, and being released only on payment of large ransoms. Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of such detention. Although we insure against these losses to the extent practicable, the risk remains of uninsured losses which could significantly affect our business. Costs are incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP3 industry standard. A number of flag states have signed the 2009 New York Declaration, which expresses commitment to Best Management Practices in relation to piracy and calls for compliance with them as an essential part of compliance with the ISPS Code.

Disruptions in world financial markets and the resulting governmental action in the United States and in other parts of the world could have a material adverse impact on our ability to obtain financing, our results of operations, financial conditions and cost flows and could cause the market price of our common units to decline.

The refugee crisis in Europe and the Middle East, and concerns relating to the European sovereign debt crisis, the socioeconomic and political crisis in Venezuela and the United Kingdom’s pending exit from the European Union have led to increased volatility in global credit and equity markets. Several European countries, including Greece, have been affected by increasing public debt burdens and weakening economic growth prospects. In recent years, Standard and Poor’s Rating Services and Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the long-term ratings of most European countries’ sovereign debt and initiated negative outlooks. Such downgrades could negatively affect those countries’ ability to access the public debt markets at reasonable rates or at all, materially affecting the financial conditions of banks in those countries, including those with which we maintain cash deposits and equivalents, or on which we rely on to finance our vessel and new business acquisitions.

29

Cash deposits and cash equivalents in excess of amounts covered by government-provided insurance are exposed to loss in the event of non-performance by financial institutions. We maintain cash deposits and equivalents in excess of government-provided insurance limits at banks in Greece, USA and other European banks, which may expose us to a loss of cash deposits or cash equivalents.

During the financial crisis, credit markets worldwide and in the U.S. experienced significant contraction, de-leveraging and reduced liquidity, and the U.S. federal government, state governments and foreign governments took highly significant measures in response to such events, including the enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in the United States, and may implement other significant responses in the future. Additionally, uncertainty regarding trade barriers, including import tariffs, tax policy and government spending in the United States have created an uncertain environment which could reduce demand for our services. Securities and futures markets and the credit markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations and other requirements. The SEC, other regulators, self-regulatory organizations and exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of market emergencies, and may effect changes in law or interpretations of existing laws. Any changes to securities, tax, environmental, trade, or other laws or regulations, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, and could cause the market price of our common units to decline.

Within the last several years, a number of financial institutions have experienced serious financial difficulties and, in some cases, have entered bankruptcy proceedings or are in regulatory enforcement actions. These difficulties resulted, in part, from declining markets for assets held by such institutions, particularly the reduction in the value of their mortgage and asset-backed securities portfolios. These difficulties were compounded by financial turmoil affecting the world’s debt, credit and capital markets, and the general decline in the willingness by banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly to the shipping industry due to the historically low vessel earnings and values, and, in part, due to changes in overall banking regulations (for example, Basel III). As a result, the ability of banks and credit institutions to finance new projects, including the acquisition of new vessels in the future, were for a time uncertain. Following the stress tests run by the European Central Bank (the “ECB”), revised capital ratios have been communicated to European banks. This has reduced the uncertainty following the difficulties of the past several years, but it has also led to changes in each bank’s lending policies and ability to provide financing or refinancing. A recurrence of global economic weakness may adversely affect the financial institutions that provide our credit facilities and may impair their ability to continue to perform under their financing obligations to us, which could have an impact on our ability to fund current and future obligations.

Furthermore, we may experience difficulties obtaining financing commitments, including commitments to refinance our existing debt as balloon payments come due under our credit facilities, in the future if lenders are unwilling to extend financing to us or unable to meet their funding obligations due to their own liquidity, capital or solvency issues. Because we would possibly cover all or a portion of the cost of any new vessel acquisition with debt financing, such uncertainty, combined with restrictions imposed by our current debt, could hamper our ability to finance vessels or new business acquisitions.

In addition, the economic uncertainty worldwide has markedly reduced demand for shipping services and has decreased shipping rates, which may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the economies of China, Japan, other Pacific Asian countries and India are the main driving force behind the development in seaborne transportation. Reduced demand from such economies has in the past driven decreased rates and vessel values and could do so in the future.

In addition, as a result of the ongoing political and economic turmoil in Greece resulting from the sovereign debt crisis and the related austerity measures implemented by the Greek government, the operations of our managers located in Greece may be subjected to new regulations and potential shift in government policies that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. We also face the risk that strikes, work stoppages, civil unrest and violence within Greece may disrupt the shoreside operations of our managers located in Greece.

We could face risks attendant to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates, tax policies, and instability in certain securities markets, among other factors. Major market disruptions and the uncertainty in market conditions and the regulatory climate in the U.S., Europe and worldwide could adversely affect our business or impair our ability to borrow amounts under any future financial arrangements. The current market conditions may last longer than we anticipate. These recent and developing economic and governmental factors could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Risks Relating to Our Units

Our board of directors may not declare cash distributions in the foreseeable future.

The declaration and payment of cash distributions, if any, will always be subject to the discretion of our board of directors, restrictions contained in our credit facilities and the requirements of Marshall Islands law. The timing and amount of any cash distributions declared will depend on, among other things, our earnings, financial condition and cash requirements and availability, our ability to obtain debt and equity financing on acceptable terms as contemplated by our growth strategy, the terms of our outstanding indebtedness and the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us. The containership and drybulk sector of the shipping industry is highly volatile, and we cannot predict with certainty the amount of cash, if any, that will be available for distribution as cash distributions in any period. Also, there may be a high degree of variability from period to period in the amount of cash that is available for the payment of cash distributions.

30

We may not have sufficient cash available to pay quarterly distributions or to maintain or increase distributions following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses. In February 2016, we announced that our board of directors decided to suspend the quarterly cash distributions to our unitholders, including the distribution for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, in order to conserve cash and improve our liquidity. In March 2018, our board of directors determined to reinstate a distribution and any continued distribution will be at the discretion of our board of directors. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common units depends principally upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which may fluctuate based on numerous factors including, those set forth elsewhere in this section.

The actual amount of cash we will have available for distribution also will depend on other factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as the level of capital expenditures we make (including those associated with maintaining vessels, building new vessels, acquiring existing vessels and complying with regulations), our debt service requirements and restrictions on distributions contained in our debt instruments, interest rate fluctuations, the cost of acquisitions, if any, fluctuations in our working capital needs, our ability to make working capital borrowings, and the amount of any cash reserves, including reserves for future maintenance and replacement capital expenditures, working capital and other matters, established by our board of directors in its discretion.

In addition, the amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our profit or loss for the period, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result of this and the other factors mentioned above, we may make cash distributions during periods when we record losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.

Any dividend payments on our common units would be declared in U.S. dollars, and any unit holder whose principal currency is not the U.S. dollar would be subject to risks of exchange rate fluctuations.

Our common units, and any cash dividends or other distributions to be declared in respect of them, if any, will be denominated in U.S. dollars. Unit holders whose principal currency is not the U.S. dollar will be exposed to foreign currency exchange rate risk. Any depreciation of the U.S. dollar in relation to such foreign currency will reduce the value of such unitholders’ units and any appreciation of the U.S. dollar will increase the value in foreign currency terms. In addition, we will not offer its shareholders the option to elect to receive dividends, if any, in any other currency. Consequently, unitholders may be required to arrange their own foreign currency exchange, either through a brokerage house or otherwise, which could incur additional commissions or expenses.

The New York Stock Exchange may delist our securities from trading on its exchange, which could limit your ability to trade our securities and subject us to additional trading restrictions.

Our securities are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), a national securities exchange. The NYSE minimum listing standards, require that we meet certain requirements relating to stockholders’ equity, number of round-lot holders, market capitalization, aggregate market value of publicly held shares and distribution requirements. However, on March 13, 2019, we were notified by the NYSE that we were no longer in compliance with the NYSE’s continued listing standards because the average closing price of our common stock over a consecutive 30 trading-day period was less than $1.00 per unit. Although we intend to cure this deficiency within the prescribed timeframe set out in the NYSE’s Listed Company Manual, we cannot assure you that our securities will continue to be listed on NYSE in the future.

If NYSE delists our securities from trading on its exchange, we could face significant material adverse consequences, including limited availability of market quotations for our securities, limited amount of news and analyst coverage for us, decreased ability for us to issue additional securities or obtain additional financing in the future, limited liquidity for our unitholders; and the loss of our tax exemption under Section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), loss of preferential capital gain tax rates for certain dividends received by certain non-corporate U.S. holders, and loss of “mark-to-market” election by U.S. holders in the event we are treated as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”).

The price of our common units may be volatile.

The price of our common units may be volatile and may fluctuate due to various factors including:

31

The containership and drybulk sector of the shipping industry has been highly unpredictable and volatile. Securities markets worldwide are experiencing significant price and volume fluctuations. The market price for our securities may also be volatile. This market volatility, as well as general economic, market or political conditions, could reduce the market price of our securities in spite of our operating performance. Consequently, you may not be able to sell our securities at prices equal to or greater than those at which you pay or paid.

Increases in interest rates may cause the market price of our common units to decline.

An increase in interest rates may cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity investments in general and in particular for yield-based equity investments such as our common units. Any such increase in interest rates or reduction in demand for our common units resulting from other relatively more attractive investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our common units to decline. In addition, our interest expense will increase, since initially our debt will bear interest at a floating rate, subject to any interest rate swaps we may enter into the future.

Substantial future sales of our common units in the public market, including through our continuous offering sales program, could cause the price of our common units to fall.

In order to raise additional capital, we may in the future offer additional common units or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common units, including convertible debt. For instance, in 2016 we entered into a Continuous Offering Program Sales Agreement for the offer and sale of up to $25.0 million in aggregate amount of our common units from time to time through the sales agent. Whether we choose to affect future sales under the continuous offering program will depend upon a variety of factors, including, among others, market conditions and the trading price of our common units relative to other sources of capital.

We cannot predict the size of future issuances or sales of our common units, including those made pursuant to the continuous offering program sales agreement or in connection with future acquisitions or capital activities, or the effect, if any, that such issuances or sales may have on the market price of our common units. The issuance and sale of substantial amounts of common units, including issuance and sales pursuant to the continuous offering program sales agreement, or announcement that such issuance and sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common units.

Unitholders may be liable for repayment of distributions.

Under some circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under the Marshall Islands Act, we may not make a distribution to unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Marshall Islands law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Marshall Islands law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Assignees who become substituted limited partners are liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the partnership that are known to the assignee at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interest and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

32

Common unitholders have limited voting rights and our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of common unitholders owning more than 4.9% of our common units.

Holders of our common units have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business. We hold a meeting of the limited partners every year to elect one or more members of our board of directors and to vote on any other matters that are properly brought before the meeting. Common unitholders may only elect four of the seven members of our board of directors. The elected directors are elected on a staggered basis and serve for three year terms. Our general partner in its sole discretion has the right to appoint the remaining three directors and to set the terms for which those directors will serve. The partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management. Unitholders will have no right to elect our general partner and our general partner may not be removed except by a vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding units, including any units owned by our general partner and its affiliates, voting together as a single class.

Our partnership agreement further restricts common unitholders’ voting rights by providing that if any person or group owns beneficially more than 4.9% of the common units then outstanding, any such common units owned by that person or group in excess of 4.9% may not be voted on any matter and will not be considered to be outstanding when sending notices of a meeting of unitholders, calculating required votes, except for purposes of nominating a person for election to our board, determining the presence of a quorum or for other similar purposes, unless required by law. The voting rights of any such common unitholders in excess of 4.9% will effectively be redistributed pro rata among the other common unitholders holding less than 4.9% of the voting power of all classes of units entitled to vote. Our general partner, its affiliates and persons who acquired common units with the prior approval of our board of directors will not be subject to this 4.9% limitation except with respect to voting their common units in the election of the elected independent directors.

Risks Relating to Taxes and Other Legal Matters

In addition to the following risk factors, you should read the section entitled “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” for a more complete discussion of the expected material U.S. federal and non-U.S. income tax considerations relating to us and the ownership and disposition of common units.

We may be subject to taxes, which may reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

We and our subsidiaries may be subject to tax in the jurisdictions in which we are organized or operate, reducing the amount of cash available for distribution. In computing our tax obligation in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. We cannot assure you that upon review of these positions the applicable authorities will agree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries, further reducing the cash available for distribution. In addition, changes in our operations or ownership could result in additional tax being imposed on us or our subsidiaries in jurisdictions in which operations are conducted.

In accordance with the currently applicable Greek law, foreign flagged vessels that are managed by Greek or foreign ship management companies having established an office in Greece are subject to duties towards the Greek state which are calculated on the basis of the relevant vessels’ tonnage. The payment of said duties exhausts the tax liability of the foreign ship owning company and the relevant manager against any tax, duty, charge or contribution payable on income from the exploitation of the foreign flagged vessel. As our Manager is located in Greece, we will have to pay these duties.

U.S. tax authorities could treat us as a “passive foreign investment company,” which could have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. unitholders.

A non-U.S. entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company” (“PFIC”), for U.S. federal income tax purposes if at least 75.0% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income,” or at least 50.0% of the average value of the entity’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” generally includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property, and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income.” U.S. unitholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC, and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their units in the PFIC, as well as additional U.S. federal income tax filing obligations.

33

Based on our current and projected method of operation, and on opinion of counsel, we believe that we were not a PFIC for our 2018 taxable year, and we expect that we will not become a PFIC with respect to any other taxable year. Our U.S. counsel, Thompson Hine LLP, is of the opinion that (1) the income we receive from time chartering activities and the assets we own that are engaged in generating such income should not be treated as passive income or assets, respectively, and (2) so long as our income from time charters exceeds 25.0% of our gross income from all sources for each taxable year after our initial taxable year and the fair market value of our vessels contracted under time charters exceeds 50.0% of the average fair market value of all of our assets for each taxable year after our initial taxable year, we should not be a PFIC for any taxable year. This opinion is based on representations and projections provided by us to our counsel regarding our assets, income and charters, and its validity is conditioned on the accuracy of such representations and projections. We expect that all of the vessels in our fleet will be engaged in time chartering activities and intend to treat our income from those activities as non-passive income, and the vessels engaged in those activities as non-passive assets, for PFIC purposes. However, we cannot assure you that the method of our operations, or the nature or composition of our income or assets, will not change in the future and that we will not become a PFIC. Moreover, although there is legal authority for our position, there is also contrary authority and no assurance can be given that the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, will accept our position.

We may have to pay tax on U.S.-source income, which would reduce our earnings.

Under the Code, 50.0% of the gross transportation income of a vessel- owning or chartering corporation that is attributable to transportation that either begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States is characterized as U.S. Source International Transportation Income. U.S. Source International Transportation Income generally is subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction or, if such U.S. Source International Transportation Income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S. federal corporate income tax (presently imposed at a 21.0% rate) as well as a branch profits tax (presently imposed at a 30.0% rate on effectively connected earnings) applies, unless the non-U.S. corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code.

Based on an opinion of counsel, and certain assumptions and representations, we believe that we have qualified for this statutory tax exemption, and we will take this position for U.S. federal income tax return reporting purposes for our 2018 taxable year. However, there are factual circumstances, including some that may be beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption, including the delisting of our securities from quotation on the NYSE which could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption and thereby make us subject to U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. Source International Transportation Income. See “—Risks Related to Our Units—The New York Stock Exchange may delist our securities from trading on its exchange, which could limit your ability to trade our securities and subject us to additional trading restrictions”. Furthermore, our board of directors could determine that it is in our best interests to take an action that would result in this tax exemption not applying to us in the future. In addition, our conclusion that we qualify for this exemption, as well as the conclusions in this regard of our counsel, Thompson Hine LLP, is based upon legal authorities that do not expressly contemplate an organizational structure such as ours; specifically, although we have elected to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we are organized as a limited partnership under Marshall Islands law. Therefore, we can give no assurances that the IRS will not take a different position regarding our qualification for this tax exemption.

If we were not entitled to the Section 883 exemption for any taxable year, we generally would be subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal gross income tax with respect to our U.S. Source International Transportation Income or, if such U.S. Source International Transportation Income were effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S. federal corporate income tax as well as a branch profits tax for those years. Our failure to qualify for the Section 883 exemption could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our unitholders.

Actions taken by holders of our common units could result in our being treated as a “controlled foreign corporation,” which could have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to certain U.S. holders.

Although we believe that Navios Partners was not a controlled foreign corporation (a “CFC”) as of December 31, 2018, or at any time during 2018, tax rules recently enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including the imposition of so-called “downward attribution” for purposes of determining whether a non-U.S. corporation is a CFC, may result in Navios Partners being treated as a CFC for U.S. federal income tax purposes in the future. Through downward attribution, U.S. subsidiaries of Navios Holdings are treated as constructive owners of the equity interests of Navios Partners for purposes of determining whether Navios Partners is a CFC. If, in the future, U.S. holders (including U.S. subsidiaries of Navios Holdings, as discussed above) that each own 10.0% or more (by vote or value) of the equity of Navios Partners own in the aggregate more than 50% of the equity of Navios Partners (by vote or value), in each case, directly, indirectly or constructively, Navios Partners should become a CFC.

U.S. holders who at all times own less than 10% of our equity should not be affected. However, if we were to become a CFC, any U.S. holder owning 10% or more (by vote or value), directly, indirectly, or constructively (but not through downward attribution), of our equity could be subject to U.S. federal income tax in respect of a portion of our earnings. Any U.S. holder of Navios Partners that owns 10% or more (by vote or value), directly, indirectly or constructively, of the equity of Navios Partners should consult its own tax advisor regarding U.S. federal tax consequences that may result from Navios Partners being treated as a CFC (see United States Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders – Controlled Foreign Corporation).

34

You may be subject to income tax in one or more non-U.S. countries, including Greece, as a result of owning our common units if, under the laws of any such country, we are considered to be carrying on business there. Such laws may require you to file a tax return with and pay taxes to those countries.

We intend that our affairs and the business of each of our controlled affiliates will be conducted and operated in a manner that minimizes income taxes imposed upon us and these controlled affiliates or which may be imposed upon you as a result of owning our common units. However, because we are organized as a partnership, there is a risk in some jurisdictions that our activities and the activities of our subsidiaries may be attributed to our unitholders for tax purposes and, thus, that you will be subject to tax in one or more non-U.S. countries, including Greece, as a result of owning our common units if, under the laws of any such country, we are considered to be carrying on business there. If you are subject to tax in any such country, you may be required to file a tax return with and to pay tax in that country based on your allocable share of our income. We may be required to reduce distributions to you on account of any withholding obligations imposed upon us by that country in respect of such allocation to you. The United States may not allow a tax credit for any foreign income taxes that you directly or indirectly incur.

We believe we can conduct our activities in such a manner that our unitholders should not be considered to be carrying on business in one or more non-U.S. countries including Greece solely as a consequence of the acquisition, holding, disposition or redemption of our common units. However, the question of whether either we or any of our controlled affiliates will be treated as carrying on business in any particular country will be largely a question of fact to be determined based upon an analysis of contractual arrangements, including the Management Agreement and the Administrative Services Agreement we entered into with the Manager, and the way we conduct business or operations, all of which may change over time. Furthermore, the laws of Greece or any other country may change in a manner that causes that country’s taxing authorities to determine that we are carrying on business in such country and are subject to its taxation laws. Any foreign taxes imposed on us or any subsidiaries will reduce our cash available for distribution.

We have been organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of partnership law; as a result, unitholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests than would unitholders of a similarly organized limited partnership in the United States.

Our partnership affairs are governed by our partnership agreement and by the Marshall Islands Act. The provisions of the Marshall Islands Act resemble provisions of the limited partnership laws of a number of states in the United States, most notably Delaware. The Marshall Islands Act also provides that it is to be applied and construed to make it uniform with Delaware law and, so long as it does not conflict with the Marshall Islands Act or decisions of the Marshall Islands courts, interpreted according to the non-statutory law (or case law) of the State of Delaware. There have been, however, few, if any, court cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the Marshall Islands Act, in contrast to Delaware, which has a fairly well-developed body of case law interpreting its limited partnership statute. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether Marshall Islands courts would reach the same conclusions as the courts in Delaware. For example, the rights of our unitholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our general partner under Marshall Islands law are not as clearly established as under judicial precedent in existence in Delaware. As a result, unitholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by our officers or directors than would unitholders of a similarly organized limited partnership in the United States.

Because we are organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands and our business is operated primarily from our office in Monaco, it may be difficult to serve us with legal process or enforce judgments against us, our directors or our management.

We are organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands, and all of our assets are located outside of the United States. Our business is operated primarily from our office in Monaco. In addition, our general partner is a Marshall Islands limited liability company, and our directors and officers generally are or will be non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the United States if you believe that your rights have been infringed under securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Marshall Islands, the Monaco and other jurisdictions may prevent or restrict you from enforcing a judgment against our assets or the assets of our general partner or our directors or officers.

Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s and our directors’ fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our general partner or our directors.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our general partner and directors would otherwise be held by Marshall Islands law. For example, our partnership agreement:

35

In order to become a limited partner of our partnership, a common unitholder is required to agree to be bound by the provisions in the partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

Our general partner has a limited call right that may require unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates, including Navios Holdings, own more than 80% of the common units, our general partner will have the right, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, but not the obligation, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units.

As of April 8, 2019, Navios Holdings directly owned 31,053,233 common units and 3,457,866 general partner units through our general partner (which Navios Holdings owns and controls), which together represent a 20.4% interest in us based on all outstanding common units and general partnership units.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to, and the control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party without the consent of the unitholders. In addition, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of the members of our general partner from transferring their respective membership interests in our general partner to a third party. A different general partner may make decisions or operate our business in a manner that is different, and significantly less skilled and beneficial to us, and that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, as well as our cash flows, including cash available for distributions to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that may have the effect of discouraging a person or group from attempting to remove our current management or our general partner, and even if our public unitholders are dissatisfied, they will be unable to remove our general partner without Navios Holdings’ consent, unless Navios Holdings’ ownership share in us is decreased; all of which could diminish the trading price of our common units.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that may have the effect of discouraging a person or group from attempting to remove our current management or our general partner.

36

Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

As a limited partner in a partnership organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands, unitholders could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if they participate in the “control” of our business. Our general partner generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, such as its debts and environmental liabilities, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner.

We can borrow money to pay distributions, it would reduce the amount of credit available to operate our business.

Our partnership agreement will allow us to make borrowings to make distributions. Accordingly, we can make distributions on all our units even though cash generated by our operations may not be sufficient to pay such distributions. Any borrowings by us to make distributions will reduce the amount of borrowings we can make for operating our business.

Our management will have broad discretion with respect to the use of the proceeds resulting from the issuance of common units under the continuous offering program.

Our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds from continuous offering program and could spend such proceeds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common units. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses and cause the price of our common units to decline. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from continuous offering program in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Our general partner and its affiliates, including Navios Holdings, own a significant interest in us and have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary and contractual duties, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of unitholders.

Navios Holdings indirectly owns an approximate 2.1% general partner interest in us through our general partner, which Navios Holdings owns and controls, and directly owns an approximate 18.3% limited partner interest in us. The general partner interest and the limited partner interest are represented in units. The general partner unit, however, does not have the same economic rights as a common unit. The general partner unit will not entitle our general partner to participate in our distributions, profits or losses. The interests of Navios Holdings may be different from your interests. This concentration of ownership may delay, deter or prevent acts that would be favored by our other unit holders or deprive unit holders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common units as part of a sale of our business, and it is possible that the interests of the controlling unit holders may in some cases conflict with our interests and the interests of our other unit holders.

37

Further, certain of our officers and/or directors are officers and/or directors of Navios Holdings and its affiliates, and our Chief Executive Officer is also the Chief Executive Officer of Navios Acquisition, Navios Containers, and Navios Holdings. As such these individuals have fiduciary duties to Navios Holdings, Navios Containers, and Navios Acquisition which may cause them to pursue business strategies that disproportionately benefit Navios Holdings, Navios Containers, and Navios Acquisition or which otherwise are not in our best interests or those of our unitholders. Conflicts of interest may arise between Navios Holdings, Navios Containers, and Navios Acquisition, and their respective affiliates including our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our general partner and its affiliates may favor their own interests over the interests of our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:

Although a majority of our directors will be elected by common unitholders, our general partner will likely have substantial influence on decisions made by our board of directors.

Our officers face conflicts in the allocation of their time to our business.

Certain of our executive officers and/or directors also serve as executive officers and/or directors of Navios Holdings and its affiliates. Navios Holdings, Navios Containers, and Navios Acquisition conduct substantial businesses and activities of their own in which we have no economic interest. If these separate activities are significantly greater than our activities, there will be material competition for the time and effort of our officers, who also provide services to Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings, Navios Containers, and their respective affiliates. Our officers are not required to work full-time on our affairs and , in the future, we may have additional officers that also provide services to Navios Holdings and its affiliates. Based solely on the anticipated relative sizes of our fleet and the fleet owned by the Navios Holdings and its affiliates over the next twelve months, we estimate that certain our officers may spend a substantial portion of their monthly business time dedicated to the business activities of the Navios Holdings and their affiliates. However, the actual allocation of time could vary significantly from time to time depending on various circumstances and needs of the businesses, such as the relative levels of strategic activities of the businesses.

38

Fees and cost reimbursements, which the Manager determines for services provided to us, represent significant percentage of our revenues, are payable regardless of profitability and reduce our cash available for distributions.

Under the terms of our existing Management Agreement, we pay a fixed daily fee for shipmanagement services provided to us by the Manager. This fixed daily fee covers all of our vessels’ operating expenses, other than certain extraordinary fees and costs, and covers all costs incurred in providing certain commercial and technical management services. We expect that we will reimburse the Manager for all drydocking expenses it incurs in connection with the management of our fleet, which may result in significantly higher fees. The term of the Management Agreement is until December 31, 2022.

In addition, the Manager provides us with administrative services, including the services of our officers and directors, pursuant to the Administrative Services Agreement which has a term until December 31, 2022, and we reimburse the Manager for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by it in connection with the provision of those services. The exact amount of these future costs and expenses are unquantifiable at this time.

All of the fees we are required to pay to the Manager under the Management Agreement and Administrative Services Agreement are payable regardless of our profitability. If we desire to terminate either of these agreements before its scheduled expiration, we must provide twelve months’ prior notice to the Manager. As a result, our ability to make short-term adjustments to manage our costs by terminating one or both these agreements may be limited which could cause our results of operations and ability to pay cash distributions to unitholders to be materially and adversely affected.

For detailed information on the amount of management fees owed under the Management Agreement, please see the section entitled, “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects – A. Operating results – Management fees”.

Item 4. Information on the Partnership

A. History and Development of the Partnership

Navios Partners is an international owner and operator of dry cargo vessels, formed on August 7, 2007 under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Navios GP L.L.C. (the “General Partner”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Navios Holdings, was also formed on that date to act as the general partner of Navios Partners and received a 2.0% general partner interest in Navios Partners.

Navios Partners is engaged in the seaborne transportation services of a wide range of dry cargo commodities including iron ore, coal, grain and fertilizer and also containers, chartering its vessels generally under medium to long-term charters. The operations of Navios Partners are managed by the Manager from its offices in Piraeus, Greece, Singapore and Monaco.

Pursuant to the initial public offering (“IPO”) on November 16, 2007, Navios Partners entered into the following agreements:

Financing Arrangements

On April 5, 2019, Navios Partners entered into a new credit facility with DNB Bank ASA of up to $40.0 million (divided into two tranches) in order to refinance two Capesize vessels. The credit facility has a term of approximately 5.0 years and bears interest at LIBOR plus 275 bps per annum. No amount has yet been drawn under this facility.

On February 12, 2019, Navios Partners entered into a new credit facility with DVB Bank S.E. of up to $66.0 million (divided into four tranches) in order to refinance four Capesize vessels. The credit facility has a term of approximately 5.0 years and bears interest at LIBOR plus 260 bps per annum. No amount has yet been drawn under this facility.

On April 5, 2019, Navios Partners entered into a sale and leaseback agreement with an unrelated third party of $20.0 million, for the Navios Sol, a 2009-built Capesize vessel of 180,274 dwt. The sale and leaseback agreement has a term of 10.0 years and an average daily payment of $6,250. This results at an implied fixed interest rate of 6.6%. Navios Partners has the option to buy the vessel starting at the end of year four which de-escalates until maturity to $6.3 million. The purchase obligation at maturity of $6.3 million is lower than the scrap value of the vessel. This financing structure has no financial covenants and no loan-to-value requirements.

In December 2018, Navios Partners entered into two sale and leaseback agreements with unrelated third parties of $25.0 million in total, for the Navios Fantastiks, a 2005-built Capesize vessel and the Navios Beaufiks, a 2004-built Capesize vessel. The sale and leaseback agreements have an average term of 5.4 years and an age adjusted amortization profile of approximately 25 years. The bareboat lease provides an average daily payment of $5,200 per vessel. This results at an implied fixed interest rate of 7.6%. Navios Partners has the option to buy the vessels starting at the end of year three which de-escalates until maturity to $6.3 million per vessel. The purchase obligation at maturity of $6.3 million per vessel is lower than the scrap value of the vessels. This financing structure has no financial covenants and no loan-to-value requirements.

39

Distributions

• Cash Distribution

In January 2019, the Board of Directors of Navios Partners authorized its quarterly cash distribution for the three month period ended December 31, 2018 of $0.02 per unit. The distribution was paid on February 14, 2019 to all unitholders of common and general partner units of record as of February 11, 2019, which included the unitholders of restricted common units issued on February 1, 2019. The aggregate amount of the declared distribution was $3.5 million.

• $4.2 million in kind Distribution

On December 3, 2018, Navios Partners distributed 855,001 units of Navios Containers to the unitholders of Navios Partners, approximately 2.5% of the Navios Containers’ outstanding equity. The amount of the distribution was $4.2 million based on the last trading price of Navios Containers’ shares in the Norwegian Over-the-Counter (“N-OTC”) market as of November 23, 2018. In connection with this transaction, Navios Partners recognized an other-than-temporary impairment of $0.6 million on the units distributed, which was presented under the caption “Equity in net earnings of affiliated companies” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Following the distribution, Navios Partners owns approximately 33.5% of the equity in Navios Containers.

Listing Developments

On March 13, 2019, Navios Partners received notice from the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (the “NYSE”) that it was not in compliance with the NYSE’s continued listing standards because the average closing price of its common stock was less than $1.00 per unit over a consecutive 30 trading-day period. Pursuant to the NYSE’s rules, Navios Partners had a six-month cure period following receipt of the notice to bring its stock price per unit and average unit price above $1.00. Navios Partners currently intends to cure this deficiency within the prescribed timeframe set out in the NYSE’s Listed Company Manual. During this time, the Company’s common stock will continue to be listed and trade on the NYSE. The NYSE’s notification does not affect the Company’s SEC reporting requirements.

Equity Offerings and Issuances

In February 2019, Navios Partners authorized the granting of 380,952 restricted common units, which were issued on February 1, 2019, to its directors and officers, which are based solely on service conditions and vest over four years. Navios Partners also issued 7,775 general partnership units to its general partner for net proceeds of $0.01 million.

In January 2019, the Board of Directors of Navios Partners authorized a common unit repurchase program for up to $50.0 million of the Company’s common units over a two year period. Common unit repurchases will be made from time to time for cash in open market transactions at prevailing market prices or in privately negotiated transactions. The timing and amount of repurchases under the program will be determined by Navios Partners’ management based upon market conditions and other factors. Repurchases may be made pursuant to a program adopted under Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The program does not require any minimum repurchase or any specific number of common units and may be suspended or reinstated at any time in Navios Partners’ discretion and without notice. The Board of Directors will review the program periodically. Repurchases will be subject to restrictions under Navios Partners’ credit facilities. As of April 8, 2019, Navios Partners has repurchased 3,946,156 common units, for a total cost of approximately $3.8 million, out of which 3,407,097 common units have been cancelled.

In December 2018, Navios Partners authorized the granting of 1,464,494 restricted common units, which were issued on December 24, 2018, to its directors and officers, which are solely based on service conditions and vest over four years. Navios Partners also issued 29,888 general partnership units to its general partner for net proceeds of $0.03 million. There were no restricted common units exercised, forfeited or expired the year ended December 31, 2018. As of December 31, 2018, no restricted common units were vested.

On February 21, 2018, Navios Partners completed a public offering of 18,422,000 common units at $1.90 per unit and raised gross proceeds of approximately $35.0 million, of which approximately $5.0 million was purchased by Navios Holdings. The net proceeds of this offering, including the underwriting discount and the offering costs of $1.6 million in total, were approximately $33.4 million. Pursuant to this offering, Navios Partners issued 375,959 general partnership units to its general partner. The net proceeds from the issuance of the general partnership units were $0.7 million.

Sales of Vessels

On March 21, 2019, Navios Partners agreed to sell the Navios Galaxy I, a 2001-built Panamax vessel of 74,195 dwt, to an unrelated third party for a net sale price of approximately $6.0 million. The sale is expected to be completed by the end of April 2019.

B. Business Overview

Introduction

We are an international owner and operator of dry cargo vessels formed by Navios Holdings (NYSE: NM), a vertically integrated seaborne shipping and logistics company with over 60 years of operating history in the dry cargo shipping industry. Our vessels are generally chartered-out under medium to long-term time charters with an average remaining term of approximately two years to a strong group of counterparties, including SwissMarine Services S.A., Cargill International S.A., Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., Uniper Global Commodities and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.

40

Our Fleet

Navios Partners controls 16 Panamax vessels, 14 Capesize vessels, three Ultra-Handymax vessels and five Containerships, including one Panamax charter-in vessel, which is expected to be delivered in the second half of 2019. Our fleet of dry cargo vessels has an average age of 10.1 years for drybulk vessels and containerships, which approximates the current industry average of about 9.8 years for drybulk vessels and 12.4 years for containerships, respectively (both industry averages as of February 1, 2019). Panamax vessels are highly flexible vessels capable of carrying a wide range of dry cargo commodities, including iron ore, coal, grain and fertilizer and being accommodated in most major discharge ports, while Capesize vessels are primarily dedicated to the carriage of iron ore and coal. Ultra-Handymax vessels are similar to Panamax vessels although with less carrying capacity and generally have self-loading and discharging gear on board to accommodate undeveloped ports. Containerships are specifically constructed to transport containerized cargo. We may from time to time purchase additional vessels, including vessels from Navios Holdings and other affiliates.

We generate revenues by charging our customers for the use of our vessels to transport their dry cargo commodities. In general, the vessels in our fleet are chartered-out under time charters, which range in length from one to twelve years at inception. From time to time, we operate vessels in the spot market until the vessels have been chartered under long-term charters.

The following table provides summary information about our fleet as of April 8, 2019:

41

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that our future prospects for success are enhanced by the following aspects of our business:

42

Business Strategies

Our primary business objective is to increase quarterly distributions per unit over time by executing the following strategies:

Our Customers

We provide or will provide seaborne shipping services under long-term time charters with customers that we believe are creditworthy. For the year ended December 31, 2018, HMM represented approximately 24.5% of total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2017, HMM and Yang Ming accounted for approximately 26.8% and 12.0%, respectively, of our total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2016, HMM, Yang Ming and Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. accounted for 29.6%, 13.0% and 11.6%, respectively, of our total revenues. No other customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues for any of the years presented.

Although we believe that if any one of our charters were terminated, we could recharter the related vessel at the prevailing market rate relatively quickly, the permanent loss of a significant customer or a substantial decline in the amount of services requested by a significant customer could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations if we were unable to recharter our vessel on a favorable basis due to then-current market conditions, or otherwise.

Competition

The drybulk shipping market is extensive, diversified, competitive and highly fragmented, divided among approximately 1,972 independent drybulk carrier owners. The world’s active drybulk fleet consists of approximately 11,400 vessels, aggregating approximately 846.7 million dwt as of April 1, 2019. As a general principle, the smaller the cargo carrying capacity of a drybulk carrier, the more fragmented is its market, both with regard to charterers and vessel owner/operators. Even among the larger drybulk owners and operators, whose vessels are mainly in the larger sizes, only ten companies are known to have fleets of 100 vessels or more: China COSCO Shipping, Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Fredriksen Group, Wisdom Marine, China Merchants, Kawasaki Kisen, Pacific Basin Shipping, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Oldendorff Carriers and Star Bulk Carriers. There are about 40 owners known to have fleets of between 30 and 100 vessels. However, vessel ownership is not the only determining factor of fleet control. Many owners of bulk carriers charter their vessels out for extended periods, not just to end users (owners of cargo), but also to other owner/operators and to tonnage pools. Such operators may, at any given time, control a fleet many times the size of their owned tonnage. Navios Holdings is one such operator; others include Cargill, Pacific Basin Shipping, Bocimar, Zodiac Maritime, Louis Dreyfus/Cetragpa, Cobelfret, Torvald Klaveness and Swiss Marine.

43

The container shipping market is extensive, diversified, competitive and fragmented, divided among approximately 635 liner operators and independent owners. The world’s active containership fleet consists of approximately 5,270 vessels, aggregating approximately 22.1 million TEU as of April 1, 2019. As a general principle, the smaller the cargo carrying capacity of a containership, the more fragmented is its market, both with regard to charterers and vessel owner/operators. Even among the larger liner companies and containership owners and operators, whose vessels are mainly in the larger sizes, only ten companies are known to control fleets of 97 vessels or more: AP Moller, Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), China COSCO Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Pacific International Lines, Hapag Lloyd, Seaspan, Imabari Shipbuilding and Wan Hai Lines. There are about 40 owners known to control fleets of between 26 and 83 vessels. However, vessel ownership is not the only determining factor of fleet control. Liner companies, who control the movement of containers on land and at sea, own vessels directly and charter in vessels on short and long-term charters. Many owners/managers of containerships charter their vessels out for extended periods but do not control the movement of any containers, the so called tonnage providers. Liner companies may, at any given time, control a fleet many times the size of their owned tonnage. AP Moller and MSC are such liner operators; whereas Peter Dohle, Seaspan and others including Navios Maritime Partners are tonnage providers.

It is likely that we will face substantial competition for long-term charter business from a number of experienced companies. Many of these competitors will have significantly greater financial resources than we do. It is also likely that we will face increased numbers of competitors entering into our transportation sectors, including in the container and drybulk sectors. Many of these competitors have strong reputations and extensive resources and experience. Increased competition may cause greater price competition, especially for long-term charters.

Time Charters

A time charter is a contract for the use of a vessel for a fixed period of time at a specified daily rate. Under a time charter, the vessel owner provides crewing and other services related to the vessel’s operation, the cost of which is included in the daily rate and the customer is responsible for substantially all of the vessel voyage costs. All of the vessels in our fleet are hired out under time charters, and we intend to continue to hire out our vessels under time charters. The following discussion describes the material terms common to all of our time charters.

Basic Hire Rate

“Basic hire rate” refers to the basic payment from the customer for the use of the vessel. The hire rate is generally payable semi-monthly, in advance, in U.S. dollars as specified in the charter.

Expenses

The charterer generally pays the voyage expenses, which include all expenses relating to particular voyages, including any bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and commissions.

Off-hire

When the vessel is “off-hire,” the charterer generally is not required to pay the basic hire rate, and we are responsible for all costs. Prolonged off-hire may lead to vessel substitution or termination of the time charter. A vessel generally will be deemed off-hire if there is a loss of time due to, among other things:

Under some of our charters, the charterer is permitted to terminate the time charter if the vessel is off-hire for an extended period, which is generally defined as a period of 90 or more consecutive off-hire days. Under some circumstances, an event of force majeure may also permit the charterer to terminate the time charter or suspend payment of charter hire.

Termination

We are generally entitled to suspend performance under the time charters covering our vessels if the customer defaults in its payment obligations. Under some of our time charters, either party may terminate the charter in the event of war in specified countries or in locations that would significantly disrupt the free trade of the vessel. Some of our time charters covering our vessels require us to return to the charterer, upon the loss of the vessel, all advances paid by the charterer but not earned by us.

44

Classification, Inspection and Maintenance

Every sea going vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is “in class,” signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel’s country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

The classification society also undertakes, on request, other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case or to the regulations of the country concerned. For maintenance of the class, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull, machinery (including the electrical plant) and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:

Management of Ship Operations, Administration and Safety

Navios Holdings provides, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Navios ShipManagement Inc., referred to as the Manager herein, expertise in various functions critical to our operations. Pursuant to the Management Agreement and the Administrative Services Agreement with the Manager, we have access to human resources, financial and other administrative functions, including:

Technical management services are also provided, including:

For more information on the management agreement we have with the Manager and the Administrative Services Agreement we have with the Manager, please read “Item 7. — Unitholders and Related Party Transactions”.

Crewing

The Manager crews its vessels primarily with Filipino, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, Indian, Georgian, Romanian and Sri Lankan officers and Filipino, Georgian, Romanian, Ethiopian, Indian and Ukrainian seamen. For these nationalities, officers and seamen are referred to the Manager by local crewing agencies. The Manager is also responsible for travel and payroll of the crew. The crewing agencies handle each seaman’s training. The Manager requires that all of its seamen have the qualifications and licenses required to comply with international regulations and shipping conventions.

45

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, physical damage, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage, business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. The OPA, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel trading in the United States exclusive economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for ship owners and operators trading in the U.S. market. While we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull and Machinery and War Risk Insurances

We have marine hull and machinery and war risk insurance, which include coverage of the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of our owned vessels. Each of the owned vessels is covered up to at least fair market value, with a deductible of $0.1 million per Handymax and Panamax vessels and $0.2 million per Capesize vessels for the hull and machinery insurance. We have also extended our war risk insurance to include war loss of hire for any loss of time to the vessel, including for physical repairs, caused by a warlike incident and piracy seizure for up to 270 days of detention / loss of time. There are no deductibles for the war risk insurance or the war loss of hire cover.

We have arranged, as necessary, increased value insurance for our vessels. With the increased value insurance, in case of total loss of the vessel, we will be able to recover the sum insured under the increased value policy in addition to the sum insured under the hull and machinery policy. Increased value insurance also covers excess liabilities that are not recoverable in full by the hull and machinery policies by reason of underinsurance. We do not expect to maintain loss of hire insurance for our vessels. Loss of hire insurance covers business interruptions that result in the loss of use of a vessel.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance is expected to be provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations, who indemnify members in respect of discharging their tortious, contractual or statutory third-party legal liabilities arising from the operation of an entered ship. Such liabilities include but are not limited to third-party liability and other related expenses from injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances, and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and indemnity mutual associations and always provided in accordance with the applicable associations’ rules and members’ agreed terms and conditions.

Navios Partners’ fleet is currently entered for protection and indemnity insurance with International Group associations where, in line with all International Group Clubs, coverage for oil pollution is limited to $1.0 billion per event. The 13 P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 95% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to collectively reinsure each association’s liabilities. Each vessel that Navios Partners acquires will be entered with P&I Associations of the International Group. Under the International Group reinsurance program for the current policy year, each P&I club in the International Group is responsible for the first $10.0 million of every claim. In every claim the amount in excess of $10.0 million and up to $80.0 million is shared by the clubs under the pooling agreement. Any claim in excess of $80.0 million is reinsured by the International Group in the international reinsurance market under the General Excess of Loss Reinsurance Contract. This policy currently provides an additional $2.0 billion of coverage for non-oil pollution claims. Further to this, an additional reinsurance layer has been placed by the International Group for claims up to $1.0 billion in excess of $2.08 billion, i.e. $3.08 billion in total. For passengers and crew claims, the overall limit is $3.0 billion for any one event on any one vessel with a sub-limit of $2.0 billion for passengers. With the exception of pollution, passenger or crew claims, should any other P&I claim exceed Group reinsurance limits, the provisions of all International Group Club’s overspill claim rules will operate and members of any International Group Club will be liable for additional contributions in accordance with such rules. To date, there has never been an overspill claim, or one even nearing this level.

As a member of the P&I Associations, which is a member of the International Group, Navios Partners will be subject to calls payable to the associations based on the individual fleet record, the associations’ overall claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations, and members of the pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group. The P&I Associations’ policy year commences on February 20th. Calls are levied by means of Estimated Total Premiums (“ETP”) and the amount of the final installment of the ETP varies according to the actual total premium ultimately required by the club for a particular policy year. Members have a liability to pay supplementary calls which might be levied by the board of directors of the club if the ETP is insufficient to cover amounts paid out by the club.

46

Should a member leave or entry cease with any of the associations, at the Club’s Managers discretion, they may be also be liable to pay release calls or provide adequate security for the same amount. Such calls are levied in respect of potential outstanding Club/Member liabilities on open policy years and include but are not limited to liabilities for deferred calls and supplementary calls.

Uninsured Risks

Not all risks are insured and not all risks are insurable. The principal insurable risks which nonetheless remain uninsured across our fleet are “loss of hire” and “strikes,” except in cases of loss of hire due to war or a piracy event or due to presence or suspected presence of Contraband on board. Specifically, Navios Partners does not insure these risks because the costs are regarded as disproportionate. These insurances provide, subject to a deductible, a limited indemnity for hire that would not be receivable by the ship owner for reasons set forth in the policy. Should a vessel on time charter, where the vessel is paid a fixed hire day by day, suffer a serious mechanical breakdown, the daily hire will no longer be payable by the charterer. The purpose of the loss of hire insurance is to secure the loss of hire during such periods. In the case of strikes insurance, if a vessel is being paid a fixed sum to perform a voyage and the ship becomes strike bound at a loading or discharging port, the insurance covers the loss of earnings during such periods.

However, in some cases when a vessel is transiting high risk war and/or piracy areas, we arrange war loss of hire insurance to cover up to 270 days of detention/loss of time. When our charterers engage in legally permitted trading in locations which may still be subject to sanctions or boycott, such as Iran, Syria and Sudan, our insurers may be contractually or by operation of law prohibited from honoring our insurance contract for such trading, which could result in reduced insurance coverage for losses incurred by the related vessels. Furthermore, our insurers and we may be prohibited from posting or otherwise be unable to post security in respect of any incident in such locations, resulting in the loss of use of the relevant vessel and negative publicity for our Company which could negatively impact our business, results of operations, cash flows and share price.

There are no deductibles for the war loss of hire cover in case of piracy and contraband cover.

Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, if we suffer a loss of a vessel, we may not be able to obtain a timely replacement for any lost vessel. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also on the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage. A catastrophic oil spill or marine disaster could exceed our insurance coverage, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could harm our business and financial condition. In addition, the insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain actions, such as vessels failing to maintain required certification.

Credit Risk Insurance

On November 15, 2012 (as amended in March 2014), Navios Holdings and Navios Partners entered into an agreement (the “Navios Holdings Guarantee”) by which Navios Holdings will provide supplemental credit default insurance with a maximum cash payment of $20.0 million. The final settlement of the amount due will take place at any time but in no case later than December 31, 2019, in accordance with a letter of agreement effective as of December 29, 2017. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company did not submit any claims to Navios Holdings for charterers’ default under this agreement. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company submitted claims for charterers’ default under this agreement to Navios Holdings for a total amount of $7.2 million and $9.2 million, respectively, net of applicable deductions, of which $7.6 million and $9.6 million was recorded as “Other income”. Net of the $2.0 million write down, the claim amounted to $17.6 million, including accrued interest and discount unwinding of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, presented under the caption “Amounts due from related parties-short term” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Regulation

Sources of applicable rules and standards

Shipping is one of the world’s most heavily regulated industries, and, in addition, it is subject to many industry standards. Government regulation significantly affects the ownership and operation of vessels. These regulations consist mainly of rules and standards established by international conventions, but they also include national, state, and local laws and regulations in force in jurisdictions where vessels may operate or are registered, and which are commonly more stringent than international rules and standards. This is the case particularly in the United States and, increasingly, in Europe.

A variety of governmental and private entities subject vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include local port authorities (the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor masters or equivalent entities), classification societies, flag state administration (country vessel of registry), and charterers, particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require vessel owners to obtain permits, licenses, and certificates for the operation of their vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require a vessel owner to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of its vessels.

Heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators, and charterers continue to lead to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to stricter environmental standards. Vessel owners are required to maintain operating standards for all vessels that will emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of officers and crews and compliance with U.S. and international regulations.

47

The International Maritime Organization, or IMO, has adopted a number of international conventions concerned with ship safety and with preventing, reducing or controlling pollution from ships. These fall into two main categories, consisting firstly of those concerned generally with ship safety standards, and secondly of those specifically concerned with measures to prevent pollution.

Ship safety regulation

In the former category the primary international instrument is the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1974, as amended, or SOLAS, together with the regulations and codes of practice that form part of its regime. Much of SOLAS is not directly concerned with preventing pollution, but some of its safety provisions are intended to prevent pollution as well as promote safety of life and preservation of property. These regulations have been and continue to be regularly amended as new and higher safety standards are introduced with which we are required to comply.

An amendment of SOLAS introduced the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which has been effective since July 1998. Under the ISM Code the party with operational control of a vessel is required to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies. The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel’s management with code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by the flag state for the vessel, under the ISM Code. Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations, such as the mandatory ship energy efficiency management plan (“SEEMP”) which is akin to a safety management plan and came into effect on January 1, 2013, may subject a ship owner to increased liability, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels, and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. For example, the United States Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading in ports in the United States and European Union.

Another amendment of SOLAS, made after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, introduced special measures to enhance maritime security, including the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code).

Our owned fleet maintains ISM and ISPS certifications for safety and security of operations. Each vessel’s certificate must be periodically renewed and compliance must be periodically verified. In addition, the Manager voluntarily implements and maintains certifications pursuant to the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, for its office and ships covering both quality of services and environmental protection (ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, respectively).

International regulations to prevent pollution from ships

In the second main category of international regulation, the primary instrument is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, which imposes environmental standards on the shipping industry set out in Annexes I-VI of MARPOL. These contain regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil (Annex I), by noxious liquid substances in bulk (Annex II), by harmful substances in packaged forms within the scope of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (Annex III), by sewage (Annex IV), by garbage (Annex V), and by air emissions (Annex VI).

These regulations have been and continue to be regularly amended as new and more stringent standards of pollution prevention are introduced with which we are required to comply. For example, MARPOL Annex VI, together with the NOx Technical Code established thereunder, sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. It also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on emissions. Originally adopted in September 1997, Annex VI came into force in May 2005 and was amended in October 2008 (as was the NOx Technical Code) to provide for progressively more stringent limits on such emissions from 2010 onwards.

The revised Annex VI provides, in particular, for a reduction of the global sulfur cap. After considering the issue for many years, the IMO announced on October 27, 2016 that it was proceeding with a requirement for 0.5% m/m sulfur content in marine fuel (down from current levels of 3.5%) outside the ECAs starting on January 1, 2020. Under Annex VI, the 2020 date was subject to review as to the availability of the required fuel oil. Annex VI required the fuel availability review to be completed by 2018 but was ultimately completed in 2016. Therefore, by 2020, ships will be required to remove sulfur from emissions through the use of emission control equipment, or purchase marine fuel with 0.5% sulfur content, which may see increased demand and higher prices due to supply constraints. Installing pollution control equipment or using lower sulfur fuel could result in significantly increased costs to our company. Similarly Annex VI requires Tier III standards for NOx emissions to be applied to ships constructed and engines installed in ships operating in NOx ECAs from January 1, 2016. We anticipate incurring costs to comply with these more stringent standards by implementing measures such as fuel switching, vessel modification adding distillate fuel storage capacity, or addition of exhaust gas cleaning scrubbers, and may require installation and operation of further control equipment at significantly increased cost.

48

The revised Annex VI further allows for designation, in response to proposals from member parties, of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) that impose accelerated and/or more stringent requirements for control of sulfur oxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxide emissions. Thus far, ECAs have been formally adopted for the Baltic Sea area (limits SOx emissions only); the North Sea area including the English Channel (limiting SOx emissions only) and the North American ECA (which came into effect from August 1, 2012 limiting SOx, NOx and particulate matter emissions). In October 2016, the IMO approved the designation of the North Sea and Baltic Sea as ECAs for NOx under Annex VI as well, which is scheduled for adoption in 2017 and would take effect in January 2021. The United States Caribbean Sea ECA entered into force on January 1, 2013 and has been effective since January 1, 2014, limiting SOx, NOx and particulate matter emissions. For the currently-designated ECAs, much lower sulfur limits on fuel oil content are being phased in (0.1% from January 1, 2015).

At its 68th session (2015), the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (the “MEPC”) amended the 2014 Guidelines on EEDI survey and certification as well as the method of calculating of EEDI for new ships, the latter of which was again amended at the 70th session (2016). At its 70th session, the MEPC also adopted mandatory requirements for ships of 5,000 gross tonnage or greater to collect fuel consumption data for each type of fuel used, and report the data to the flag State after the end of each calendar year. At the 72nd MEPC session (April 2018), the committee adopted the goal of reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions from ships by at least 50% by 2050 as compared to 2008 levels, which if implemented could significantly increase operational costs associated with equipment upgrades and fuel costs.

The revised Annex I to the MARPOL Convention entered into force in January 2007. It incorporates various amendments to the MARPOL Convention and imposes construction requirements for oil tankers delivered on or after January 1, 2010. On August 1, 2007, Regulation 12A (an amendment to Annex I) came into force imposing performance standards for accidental oil fuel outflow and requiring oil fuel tanks to be located inside the double-hull in all ships with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600 cubic meters and above, and which are delivered on or after August 1, 2010, including ships for which the building contract is entered into on or after August 1, 2007 or, in the absence of a contract, for which keel is laid on or after February 1, 2008. We intend that all of our newbuilt tanker vessels, if any, will comply with Regulation 12A.

Greenhouse gas emissions

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. Currently, the greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping do not come under the Kyoto Protocol.

In December 2011, UN climate change talks took place in Durban and concluded with an agreement referred to as the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. In preparation for the Durban Conference, the International Chamber of Shipping (“ICS”) produced a briefing document, confirming the shipping industry’s commitment to cut shipping emissions by 20% by 2020, with significant further reductions thereafter. The ICS called on the participants in the Durban Conference to give the IMO a clear mandate to deliver emissions reductions through market-based measures, for example a shipping industry environmental compensation fund. Notwithstanding the ICS’s request for global regulation of the shipping industry, the Durban Conference did not result in any proposals specifically addressing the shipping industry’s role in climate change.

Although regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the shipping industry was discussed during the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (the “Paris Conference”), the agreement reached among the 195 nations did not expressly reference the shipping industry. Following the Paris Conference, the IMO announced it would continue its efforts on this issue at the MEPC, and at its 70th session, the MEPC approved a Roadmap for developing a comprehensive GHG emissions reduction strategy for ships, which includes the goal of adopting an initial strategy and emission reduction commitments in 2018. The Roadmap also provides for additional studies and further intersessional work, to be continued at the 71st session in 2017, with a goal of adopting a revised strategy in 2023 to include short-, mid- and long-term reduction measures and schedules for implementation. In April 2018, the committee charged with creating the reduction strategy must finalize the initial draft of the strategy and submit a report to MEPC.

On August 3, 2017, the U.S. formally submitted a notice of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Thus far, no other nations have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, so it remains to be seen whether the withdrawal will significantly impact greenhouse gas developments moving forward. The United Nations’ Katowice Climate Change Conference occurred December 2-14, 2018. The key objective of the meeting was to begin adopting the implementation guidelines of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

On June 28, 2013, the EC adopted a communication setting out a strategy for progressively including greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport in the EU’s policy for reducing its overall GHG emissions. The first step proposed by the EC was an EU regulation (as defined below) to an EU-wide system for the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from large ships starting in 2018. EU Regulation 2015/757 was adopted on April 29, 2015 and took effect on July 1, 2015, with monitoring, reporting and verification requirements beginning on January 1, 2018. This Regulation appears to be indicative of an intent to maintain pressure on the international negotiating process. The EC also adopted an Implementing Regulation, which entered into force in November 2016, setting templates for monitoring plans, emissions reports and compliance documents pursuant to Regulation 2015/757.

49

Other international regulations to prevent pollution

In addition, the IMO, the United States and states within the United States have proposed or implemented requirements relating to the management of ballast water to prevent the harmful effects of foreign invasive species. In February 2004, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”). The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits, as well as other obligations including recordkeeping requirements and implementation of a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan. The BWM Convention entered into force on September 8, 2017. As of February 11, 2019, the BWM Convention had 79 contracting states for 80.94% of world gross tonnage. New ships constructed after September 8, 2017 must comply on delivery with the BWM Convention. For vessels constructed prior to September 8, 2017, installation of ballast water management systems must take place at the first renewal survey following September 8, 2017 (the date the BWM Convention entered into force). Ships built before September 8, 2017 must comply with IMO discharge standards by the due date for their IOPPC renewal survey under MARPOL Annex 1. All ships must meet the IMO ballast water discharge standard by September 8, 2024. The BWM Convention requires ships to manage ballast water in a manner that removes, renders harmless or avoids the update or discharge of aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediment. Recently updated Ballast Water and Sediment Management Plan guidance includes more robust testing and performance specifications. The entry of the BWM Convention and revised guidance, as well as similar ballast water treatment requirements in certain jurisdictions (such as the United States and states within the United States), will likely result in substantial compliance costs relating to the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged and other additional ballast water management and reporting requirements. In the United States, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) was signed into law on December 4, 2018, which requires the U.S. Coast Guard to address the regulation of discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels into navigable waters, including management of ballast water. This change is expected to result in a simplification of the current patch-work state of ballast water regulation in the United States, which is currently variably regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the various states.

European regulations

European regulations in the maritime sector are in general based on international law. However, since the Erika incident in 1999, the European Community has become increasingly active in the field of regulation of maritime safety and protection of the environment. It has been the driving force behind a number of amendments of MARPOL (including, for example, changes to accelerate the time-table for the phase-out of single hull tankers, and to prohibit the carriage in such tankers of heavy grades of oil), and if dissatisfied either with the extent of such amendments or with the time-table for their introduction it has been prepared to legislate on a unilateral basis. It should be noted, for instance, that the EU has its own regime as far as ship emissions are concerned and whilst it does in some respects reflect the IMO regime, this is not always the case. As far as sulfur dioxide emissions are concerned, for example, the EU regulation has not just caught up with the IMO limits for sulfur in ECAs, but it continues to have certain elements that exceed IMO regulations (e.g., as of January 1, 2015, EU Member States must ensure that ships in the Baltic, the North Seam and the English Channel are using gas oils with a sulfur content of no more than 0.10%).

In some instances where it has done so, international regulations have subsequently been amended to the same level of stringency as that introduced in Europe, but the risk is well established that EU regulations may from time to time impose burdens and costs on ship owners and operators which are additional to those involved in complying with international rules and standards. In December 2016, the EU signed into law the National Emissions Ceiling (“NEC”) Directive, which entered into force on December 31, 2016. The NEC must be implemented by individual members states through particular laws in each state by June 30, 2018. The NEC aims to set stricter emissions limits on SO2, ammonia, non-methane volatile organic compounds, NOx and fine particulate (PM2.5) by setting new upper limits for emissions of these pollutants, starting in 2020. While the NEC is not specifically directed toward the shipping industry, the EU specifically mentions the shipping industry in its announcement of the NEC as a contributor to emissions of PM2.5, SO2 and NOx. Implementation of new laws by member states to reduce emissions may ultimately result in increased costs to us to comply with the more stringent standards.

In some areas of regulation the EU has introduced new laws without attempting to procure a corresponding amendment of international law. Notably, it adopted in 2005 a directive on ship-source pollution, imposing criminal sanctions for pollution not only where this is caused by intent or recklessness (which would be an offense under MARPOL), but also where it is caused by “serious negligence.” The directive could therefore result in criminal liability being incurred in circumstances where it would not be incurred under international law. Experience has shown that in the emotive atmosphere often associated with pollution incidents, retributive attitudes towards ship interests have found expression in negligence being alleged by prosecutors and found by courts. Moreover, there is skepticism that the notion of “serious negligence” is likely to prove any narrower in practice than ordinary negligence. Criminal liability for a pollution incident could not only result in us incurring substantial penalties or fines but may also, in some jurisdictions, facilitate civil liability claims for greater compensation than would otherwise have been payable.

50

United States environmental regulations and laws governing civil liability for pollution

Environmental legislation in the United States merits particular mention as it is in many respects more onerous than international laws, representing a high-water mark of regulation with which ship owners and operators must comply, and of liability likely to be incurred in the event of non-compliance or an incident causing pollution.

U.S. federal legislation, including notably the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills, including cargo or bunker oil spills from tankers. OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Under OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or substantial threats of discharges, of oil from their vessels. In addition to potential liability under OPA as the relevant federal legislation, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred.

Title VII of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, or the CGMTA, amended OPA to require the owner or operator of any non-tank vessel of 400 gross tons or more, that carries oil of any kind as a fuel for main propulsion, including bunkers, to prepare and submit a response plan for each vessel on or before August 8, 2005. The implementing regulations took effect on October 30, 2013. The vessel response plans must include detailed information on actions to be taken by vessel personnel to prevent or mitigate any discharge or substantial threat of such a discharge of ore from the vessel due to operational activities or casualties.

OPA liability limits are periodically adjusted for inflation, and the U.S. Coast Guard issued a final rule on November 19, 2015 to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index. With this adjustment, OPA currently limits liability of the responsible party for single-hull tank vessels over 3,000 gross tons to the greater of $3,500 per gross ton or $25.846 million (this amount is reduced to $7.05 million if the vessel is less than 3,000 gross tons). For tank vessels over 3,000 gross tons, other than a single-hull vessel, liability is limited to $2,200 per gross ton or $18.8 million (or $4.7 million for a vessel less than 3,000 gross tons), whichever is greater. Under the OPA, these liability limits do not apply if an incident was directly caused by violation of applicable United States federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities.

In response to the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 the U.S. Congress proposed, but did not formally adopt, legislation to amend OPA to mandate stronger safety standards and increased liability and financial responsibility for offshore drilling operations. While Congressional activity on this topic is expected to continue to focus on offshore facilities rather than on vessels generally, it cannot be known with certainty what form any such new legislative initiatives may take.

In addition, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil) whether on land or at sea, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $0.5 million for vessels not carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue, unless the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct, or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited.

Similarly, in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, the EU issued “Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 12, 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations.” The objective of this Directive is to reduce as far as possible the occurrence of major accidents relating to offshore oil and gas operations and to limit their consequences, thus increasing the protection of the marine environment and coastal economies against pollution, establishing minimum conditions for safe offshore exploration and exploitation of oil and gas and limiting possible disruptions to Union indigenous energy production, and to improve the response mechanisms in case of an accident. Member states had to implement the Directive by July 19, 2015. As far as the environment is concerned, the UK has various regulations such as: the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Offshore Safety Directive) (Environmental Functions) Regulations 2015 (OSDEF), the 2015 amendments to the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention) Regulations 1998 (OPRC 1998) and other environmental Directive requirements, specifically the Environmental Management System. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing (Offshore Safety Directive) Regulations 2015 will implement the licensing Directive requirements.

We currently maintain, for each of our owned vessels, insurance coverage against pollution liability risks in the amount of $1.0 billion per incident. The insured risks include penalties and fines as well as civil liabilities and expenses resulting from accidental pollution. However, this insurance coverage is subject to exclusions, deductibles and other terms and conditions. If any liabilities or expenses fall within an exclusion from coverage, or if damages from a catastrophic incident exceed the $1.0 billion limitation of coverage per incident, our cash flow, profitability and financial position could be adversely impacted.

51

Under OPA, an owner or operator of a fleet of vessels is required only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessel in the fleet having the greatest maximum liability under OPA. Under the self-insurance provisions, the ship owner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the United States against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount of financial responsibility. We have complied with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations by providing a certificate of responsibility from third party entities that are acceptable to the U.S. Coast Guard evidencing sufficient self-insurance.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s regulations concerning certificates of financial responsibility provide, in accordance with OPA, that claimants may bring suit directly against an insurer or guarantor that furnishes certificates of financial responsibility. If such insurer or guarantor is sued directly, it is prohibited from asserting any contractual defense that it may have had against the responsible party and is limited to asserting those defenses available to the responsible party and the defense that the incident was caused by the willful misconduct of the responsible party. Certain organizations, which had typically provided certificates of financial responsibility under pre-OPA laws, including the major protection and indemnity organizations, have declined to furnish evidence of insurance for vessel owners and operators if they are subject to direct actions or required to waive insurance policy defenses. This requirement may have the effect of limiting the availability of the type of coverage required by the Coast Guard and could increase our costs of obtaining this insurance as well as the costs of our competitors that also require such coverage.

OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states’ environmental laws impose unlimited liability for oil spills. In some cases, states which have enacted such legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessels owners’ responsibilities under these laws.

The United States Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under CERCLA. The EPA regulates the discharge of ballast water and other substances incidental to the normal operation of vessels in U.S. waters using a Vessel General Permit (VGP) system pursuant to the CWA, in order to combat the risk of harmful organisms that can travel in ballast water carried from foreign ports and to minimize the risk of water pollution through numerous specified effluent streams incidental to the normal operation of vessels. On March 28, 2013 the EPA adopted the 2013 VGP which took effect on December 19, 2013. The VGP imposes a numeric standard to control the release of non-indigenous invasive species in ballast water discharges. In addition, through the CWA certification provisions that allow U.S. states to place additional conditions on use of the VGP within state waters, a number of states have proposed or implemented a variety of stricter ballast water requirements including, in some states, specific treatment standards.

On December 4, 2018, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) was signed into law, which establishes a new framework for regulation of discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels into navigable waters of the United States, including management of ballast water. Under VIDA, the U.S. EPA is required to develop performance standards within two years and then requires the U.S. Coast Guard to develop regulations for the implementation and enforcement of those standards within the following two years. This change is expected to result in a simplification of the current patch-work of ballast water regulation in the United States, which is currently variably regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the various states. As a result of the passage of VIDA, the current VGP will remain in force until the U.S. Coast Guard finalizes its regulations under VIDA.

Coast Guard regulations require commercial ships operating in U.S. waters to manage ballast water by meeting certain requirements, which include using a U.S. type-approved Ballast Water Management System (“BWMS”), temporarily using a foreign-type BWMS that has been accepted by the Coast Guard, using ballast water obtained from a U.S. Public Water System, discharge ballast water into a shore-side facility or not discharge ballast water within 12 nautical miles. Vessel owners/operators may request an extension to the compliance deadline by showing that, despite all efforts, it cannot comply with one of the approved systems or compliance methods. There are numerous foreign-approved Ballast Water Treatment Systems (“BWTS”) in the Coast Guard’s list of approved Alternate Management Systems. The Coast Guard has type approved numerous Ballast Water Management Systems (“BWMS”), which claim to meet the range of requirements that most vessel owners and operators described in their extension requests in the past. Due to the increase in approvals, it will become more difficult to receive compliance extensions and thus could result in significant costs to install an approved BWTS. Failure to comply with U.S. ballast water regulations, including installation of BWTS by September 8, 2017, could result in civil or criminal fines or penalties.

The Federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are subject to CAA vapor control and recovery standards (“VCS”) for cleaning fuel tanks and conducting other operations in regulated port areas, and to CAA emissions standards for so-called “Category 3” marine diesel engines operating in U.S. waters. In April 2010, EPA adopted regulations implementing the provision of MARPOL Annex VI regarding

52

emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines. Under these regulations, both U.S. and foreign-flagged ships must comply with the applicable engine and fuel standards of Annex VI, including the stricter North America ECA standards which took effect in August 2012, when they enter U.S. ports or operate in most internal U.S. waters including the Great Lakes. Annex VI requirements are discussed in greater detail above under “International regulations to prevent pollution from ships.” We may incur costs to install control equipment on our vessels to comply with the new standards.

Also under the CAA, since 1990 the U.S. Coast Guard has regulated the safety of VCSs that are required under EPA and state rules. Our vessels operating in regulated port areas have installed VCSs that are compliant with EPA, state and U.S. Coast Guard requirements. On July 16, 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard adopted regulations that made its VCS requirements more compatible with new EPA and State regulations, reflected changes in VCS technology, and codified existing U.S. Coast Guard guidelines. We intend to comply with all applicable state and U.S. federal regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

International laws governing civil liability for oil pollution damage

We operate a fleet of dry cargo vessels that are subject to national and international laws governing pollution from such vessels. Several international conventions impose and limit pollution liability from vessels. An owner of a tanker vessel carrying a cargo of “persistent oil” as defined by the International Convention for Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (the “CLC”) is subject under the convention to strict liability for any pollution damage caused in a contracting state by an escape or discharge from cargo or bunker tanks. This liability is subject to a financial limit calculated by reference to the tonnage of the ship, and the right to limit liability may be lost if the spill is caused by the ship owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Liability may also be incurred under the CLC for a bunker spill from the vessel even when she is not carrying such cargo, but is in ballast.

When a tanker is carrying clean oil products that do not constitute “persistent oil” that would be covered under the CLC, liability for any pollution damage will generally fall outside the CLC and will depend on other international conventions or domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs. The same principle applies to any pollution from the vessel in a jurisdiction which is not a party to the CLC. The CLC applies in over 100 jurisdictions around the world, but it does not apply in the United States, where the corresponding liability laws such as the OPA discussed above, are particularly stringent.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, which imposes strict liability on shipowners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of “bunker oil.” The Bunker Convention defines “bunker oil” as “any hydrocarbon mineral oil, including lubricating oil, used or intended to be used for the operation or propulsion of the ship, and any residues of such oil.” The Bunker Convention also requires registered owners of ships over a certain size to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended, or the 1976 Convention). The Bunker Convention became effective in contracting states on November 21, 2008 and, as of February 11, 2019, had 91 contracting states, representing 92.85% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet. In other jurisdictions liability for spills or releases of oil from ships’ bunkers continues to be determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

The Bunker Convention also provides vessel owners a right to limit their liability, depending on the applicable national or international regime. The 1976 Convention is the most widely applicable international regime limiting maritime pollution liability. Rights to limit liability under the 1976 Convention are forfeited where a spill is caused by a ship owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Certain jurisdictions have ratified the IMO’s Protocol of 1996 to the 1976 Convention, referred to herein as the “Protocol of 1996.” The Protocol of 1996 provides for substantially higher liability limits in those jurisdictions than the limits set forth in the 1976 Convention. Finally, some jurisdictions, such as the United States, are not a party to either the 1976 Convention or the Protocol of 1996, and, therefore, a ship owner’s rights to limit liability for maritime pollution in such jurisdictions may be uncertain.

Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA, came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect in July 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created ISPS Code. Among the various requirements are:

53

Furthermore, additional security measures could be required in the future which could have a significant financial impact on us. The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We will implement the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code and take measures for the vessels to attain compliance with all applicable security requirements within the prescribed time periods. Although management does not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations, there can be no assurance that there will not be an interruption in operations to bring vessels into compliance with the applicable requirements and any such interruption could cause a decrease in charter revenues. Furthermore, additional security measures could be required in the future which could have a significant financial impact on us.

Taxation of the Partnership

United States Taxation

The following is a discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax considerations applicable to us. This discussion is based upon provisions of the Code, final and temporary regulations thereunder (“Treasury Regulations”), and administrative rulings and court decisions, all as in effect currently and during our year ended December 31, 2017 and all of which are subject to change, possibly with retroactive effect. Changes in these authorities may cause the tax consequences to vary substantially from the consequences described below. The following discussion is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be a comprehensive description of all of the U.S. federal income tax considerations applicable to us.

Election to be Treated as a Corporation: We have elected to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As such, we are subject to U.S. federal income tax on our income to the extent it is from U.S. sources or otherwise is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the Unites States as discussed below.

Taxation of Operating Income: Substantially all of our gross income is attributable to the transportation of drybulk and related products. For this purpose, gross income attributable to transportation (“Transportation Income”) includes income derived from, or in connection with, the use, the hiring for use, or the leasing for use (if any) of a vessel to transport cargo, or the performance of services directly related to the use of any vessel to transport cargo, and thus includes both time charter income and bareboat charter income (if any).

Transportation Income that is attributable to transportation that either begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end in the United States (“U.S. Source International Transportation Income”) is considered to be 50.0% derived from sources within the United States. Transportation Income attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States (“U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income”) is considered to be 100.0% derived from sources within the United States. Transportation Income attributable to transportation exclusively between non-U.S. destinations is considered to be 100.0% derived from sources outside the United States. Transportation Income derived from sources outside the United States generally is not subject to U.S. federal income tax.

We believe that we did not earn any U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and expect that we will not earn any such income for future years. However, certain of our activities gave rise to U.S. Source International Transportation Income, and future expansion of our operations could result in an increase in the amount of U.S. Source International Transportation Income, which generally would be subject to U.S. federal income taxation, unless the exemption from U.S. federal income taxation under Section 883 of the Code (the “Section 883 Exemption”) applied.

The Section 883 Exemption: In general, the Section 883 Exemption provides that if a non-U.S. corporation satisfies the requirements of Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder (the “Section 883 Regulations”), it will not be subject to the net basis and branch profit taxes or the 4.0% gross basis tax described below on its U.S. Source International Transportation Income. The Section 883 Exemption applies only to U.S. Source International Transportation Income and does not apply to U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income. We qualify for the Section 883 Exemption if, among other matters, we meet the following three requirements:

54

We are organized under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The U.S. Treasury Department has recognized the Republic of the Marshall Islands as a jurisdiction that grants an Equivalent Exemption with respect to the type of income we have earned and are expected to earn. Consequently, our U.S. Source International Transportation Income (including for this purpose, any such income earned by our subsidiaries, that have elected to be disregarded as entities separate from us for U.S. federal income tax purposes) will be exempt from U.S. federal income taxation provided we meet the Publicly Traded Test or the Qualified Shareholder Stock Ownership Test and we satisfy certain substantiation, reporting and other requirements.

In order to meet the “Publicly Traded Test”, the equity interests in the non-U.S. corporation at issue must be “primarily traded” and “regularly traded” on an established securities market either in the United States or in a jurisdiction outside the United States that grants an Equivalent Exemption. The Section 883 Regulations generally provide, in pertinent part, that a class of equity interests in a non-U.S. corporation will be considered to be “primarily traded” on an established securities market in a given country if the number of units of such class that are traded during any taxable year on all established securities markets in that country exceeds the number of units in such class that are traded during that year on established securities markets in any other single country. Equity interests in a non-U.S. corporation will be considered to be “regularly traded” on an established securities market under the Section 883 Regulations provided one or more classes of such equity interests representing more than 50.0% of the aggregate vote and value of all of the outstanding equity interests in the non-U.S. corporation satisfy certain listing and trading volume requirements. These listing and trading volume requirements are satisfied with respect to a class of equity interests listed on an established securities market provided trades in such class are effected, other than in de minimis quantities, on such market on at least 60 days during the taxable year and the aggregate number of units in such class that are traded on such market or markets during the taxable year are at least 10% of the average number of units outstanding in that class during the taxable year (with special rules for short taxable years). In addition, a class of equity interests traded on an established securities market in the United States will be considered to satisfy the listing and trading volume requirements if the equity interests in such class are “regularly quoted by dealers making a market” in such class (within the meaning of the Section 883 Regulations). Notwithstanding these rules, a class of equity that would otherwise be treated as “regularly traded” on an established securities market will not be so treated if, for more than half of the number of days during the taxable year, one or more “5.0% unitholders” (i.e., unitholders owning, actually or constructively, at least 5.0% of the vote and value of that class) own in the aggregate 50.0% or more of the vote and value of that class (the “Closely Held Block Exception”), unless the corporation can establish that a sufficient proportion of such 5.0% unitholders are Qualified Shareholders (as defined below) so as to preclude other persons who are 5.0% unitholders from owning 50.0% or more of the value of that class for more than half the days during the taxable year.

Because substantially all of our common units are and have been traded on the NYSE, which is considered to be an established securities market, our common units are and have been “primarily traded” on an established securities market for purposes of the Publicly Traded Test.

Further, although the matter is not free from doubt, based upon our expected cash flow and distributions on our outstanding equity interests, we believe that our common units represented more than 50.0% of the total value of all of our outstanding equity interests, and we believe that we satisfied the trading volume requirements described previously for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. We believe that we did not lose eligibility for the Section 883 Exemption as a result of the Closely Held Block Exception for such year, and consequently, we believe we satisfied the Publicly Traded Test for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

While there can be no assurance that we will continue to satisfy the requirements for the Publicly Traded Test in the future, and our board of directors could determine that it is in our best interests to take an action that would result in our not being able to satisfy the Publicly Traded Test, we presently expect, subject to the possibility that our common units may be delisted by a qualifying exchange, to continue to satisfy the requirements for the Publicly Traded Test and the Section 883 Exemption for future years. Please see below for a discussion of the consequences in the event we do not satisfy the Publicly Traded Test or otherwise fail to qualify for the Section 883 Exemption.

Please also see the risk factor entitled “D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Units—The New York Stock Exchange may delist our securities from trading on its exchange, which could limit your ability to trade our securities and subject us to additional trading restrictions”.

The Net Basis Tax and Branch Profits Tax: If we earn U.S. Source International Transportation Income and the Section 883 Exemption does not apply, the U.S. source portion of such income may be treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States (“Effectively Connected Income”) if we have a fixed place of business in the United States and substantially all of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income is attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or, in the case of bareboat charter income (if any), is attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States.

We believe that, for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, none of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income was attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or received pursuant to bareboat charters. As a result, we believe that none of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income for such year would be treated as Effectively Connected Income even in the event we

55

did not qualify for the Section 883 Exemption. However, there is no assurance that we will not earn income pursuant to regularly scheduled transportation or bareboat charters attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States in the future, which would result in such income being treated as Effectively Connected Income. In addition, any U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income may be treated as Effectively Connected Income. Any income we earn that is treated as Effectively Connected Income would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax (presently imposed at a 21.0% rate) as well as 30.0% branch profits tax imposed under Section 884 of the Code. In addition, a 30.0% branch interest tax could be imposed on certain interest paid or deemed paid by us.

On the sale of a vessel that has produced Effectively Connected Income, we could be subject to the net basis corporate income tax as well as branch profits tax with respect to the gain recognized up to the amount of certain prior deductions for depreciation that reduced Effectively Connected Income. Otherwise, we would not be subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to gain realized on the sale of a vessel, provided the gain is not attributable to an office or other fixed place of business maintained by us in the United States under U.S. federal income tax principles.

The 4.0% Gross Basis Tax: If the Section 883 Exemption does not apply and the net basis tax does not apply, we would be subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax on the U.S. source portion of our gross U.S. Source International Transportation Income, without benefit of deductions.

Marshall Islands Taxation

Based on the opinion of Reeder and Simpson, P.C., our counsel as to matters of the law of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, because we, our operating subsidiary and our controlled affiliates do not, and do not expect to, conduct business or operations in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, neither we nor our controlled affiliates will be subject to income, capital gains, profits or other taxation under current Marshall Islands law. As a result, distributions by our operating subsidiary and our controlled affiliates to us will not be subject to Marshall Islands taxation.

Other Tax Jurisdictions

Certain of Navios Partners’ subsidiaries are incorporated in countries which impose taxes, such as Malta, however such taxes are immaterial to Navios Partners’ operations.

In accordance with the currently applicable Greek law, foreign flagged vessels that are managed by Greek or foreign ship management companies having established an office in Greece are subject to duties towards the Greek state which are calculated on the basis of the relevant vessel’s tonnage. The payment of said duties exhausts the tax liability of the foreign ship owning company and the relevant manager against any tax, duty, charge or contribution payable on income from the exploitation of the foreign flagged vessel.

C. Organizational Structure

Please read exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report for a list of our significant subsidiaries as of December 31, 2018.

Affiliates included in the financial statements accounted for under the equity method:

In the consolidated financial statements of Navios Partners, Navios Europe Inc. (“Navios Europe I”), in which Navios Partners has an ownership interest of 5.0%, is included as an affiliate and is accounted for under the equity method, for such periods during which Navios Europe I was an affiliate of Navios Partners. As of December 31, 2018, Navios Partners had 0% voting interest in Navios Europe I.

In the consolidated financial statements of Navios Partners, Navios Europe (II) Inc. (“Navios Europe II”), in which Navios Partners has an ownership interest of 5.0%, is included as an affiliate and is accounted for under the equity method, for such periods during which Navios Europe II was an affiliate of Navios Partners. As of December 31, 2018, Navios Partners had 0% voting interest in Navios Europe II.

In the consolidated financial statements of Navios Partners, Navios Containers, in which Navios Partners has an ownership interest of 33.5% as of December 31, 2018, is included as an affiliate and is accounted for under the equity method, for such periods during which Navios Containers was an affiliate of Navios Partners.

D. Property, plants and equipment

Other than our vessels, we do not have any material property, plants or equipment.

56

Item 4A. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

Overview

We are an international owner and operator of dry cargo vessels, formed in August 2007 by Navios Holdings, a vertically integrated seaborne shipping and logistics company with over 60 years of operating history in the dry cargo shipping industry. We have been a public company since November 2007.

In January 2019, the Board of Directors of Navios Partners authorized a common unit repurchase program for up to $50.0 million of the Company’s common units over a two year period. Common unit repurchases will be made from time to time for cash in open market transactions at prevailing market prices or in privately negotiated transactions. The timing and amount of repurchases under the program will be determined by Navios Partners’ management based upon market conditions and other factors. Repurchases may be made pursuant to a program adopted under Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The program does not require any minimum repurchase or any specific number of common units and may be suspended or reinstated at any time in Navios Partners’ discretion and without notice. The Board of Directors will review the program periodically. Repurchases will be subject to restrictions under Navios Partners’ credit facilities. As of April 8, 2019, Navios Partners has repurchased 3,946,156 common units, for a total cost of approximately $3.8 million, out of which 3,407,097 common units have been cancelled.

57

As of April 8, 2019, there were outstanding 166,028,113 common units and 3,457,866 general partnership units. Navios Holdings owns approximately 20.4% interest in Navios Partners, which includes the approximately 2.1% general partner interest.

Please see “Item 4. — Information on the Partnership”.

Fleet Development

On December 14, 2018, Navios Partners completed the sale of the Navios Libra II, a 1995-built Panamax vessel of 70,136 dwt. The vessel was sold to an unrelated third party for a net sale price of $4.6 million.

On December 4, 2018, Navios Partners completed the sale of the Navios Felicity, a 1997-built Panamax vessel of 73,867 dwt. The vessel was sold to an unrelated third party for a net sale price of $4.7 million.

On August 31, 2018, Navios Partners acquired from its affiliate, Navios Holdings, the Navios Sphera, a 2016-built Panamax vessel of 84,872 dwt and the Navios Mars, a 2016-built Capesize vessel of 181,259 dwt, for an acquisition cost $79.0 million, in total.

58

On July 2, 2018, Navios Partners completed the sale of the YM Unity and the YM Utmost, two 2006-built containerships of 8,204 TEU each. The vessels were sold to its affiliate, Navios Containers, for a total sale price of $67.0 million.

On June 7, 2018, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Altair I, a 2006-built Panamax vessel of 74,475 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $11.8 million.

On May 21, 2018, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Symmetry, a 2006-built Panamax vessel of 74,381 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $11.8 million.

On May 9, 2018, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Apollon I, a 2005-built Panamax vessel of 87,052 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $13.4 million.

On December 21, 2017, Navios Partners completed the sale of the Navios Gemini S, a 1994-built Panamax vessel of 68,636 dwt. The vessel was sold to an unrelated third party for a net sale price of $4.1 million.

In November 2017, Navios Partners entered into a 10-year bareboat charter-in agreement for a Panamax vessel of approximately 81,000 dwt. Navios Partners has the option to acquire the vessel after the end of the fourth year. The vessel is expected to be delivered in the second half of 2019. As of December 31, 2018, Navios Partners has paid the amount of $5.5 million, of which $2.8 million was paid during the year ended December 31, 2017.

On September 20, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Symphony, a 2010-built Capesize vessel of 178,132 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $28.0 million.

On August 21, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Aster, a 2010-built Capesize vessel of 179,314 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $28.9 million.

On August 11, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from a related third party the Navios Christine B, a 2009-built Ultra-Handymax vessel of 58,058 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $14.0 million.

On July 17, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Sol, a 2009-built Capesize vessel of 180,274 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $28.6 million.

On July 10, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Libertas, a 2007-built Panamax vessel of 75,511 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $13.7 million.

On June 9, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Ace, a 2011-built Capesize vessel of 179,016 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $31.4 million.

On June 7, 2017, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Prosperity I, a 2007-built Panamax vessel of 75,527 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $13.7 million.

On April 21, 2017, Navios Partners completed the sale of the Navios Apollon, a 2000-built Ultra-Handymax vessel of 52,073 dwt. The vessel was sold to an unrelated third party for a net sale price of $4.8 million.

On January 12, 2017, Navios Partners completed the sale of the MSC Cristina, a 2011-built Containership of 13,100 TEU. The vessel was sold to an unrelated third party for a net sale price of $125.0 million.

On December 30, 2016, Navios Partners acquired from an unrelated third party the Navios Beaufiks, a 2004-built Capesize vessel of 180,310 dwt, for an acquisition cost of $15.4 million.

The historical results discussed below, and the historical financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this annual report, present operating results of the fleet for the periods beginning from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018.

59

(1) The vessel was sold on December 21, 2017 (see Note 7 – Vessels, net).

(2) The vessel was sold on April 21, 2017 (see Note 7 – Vessels, net).

(3) The vessels were sold on July 2, 2018 (see Note 7 – Vessels, net).

(4) The vessel was sold on January 12, 2017 (see Note 7 – Vessels, net).

(5) The vessel was sold on December 14, 2018 (see Note 7 – Vessels, net).

(6) The vessel was sold on December 4, 2018 (see Note 7 – Vessels, net).

(7) Not a vessel-owning subsidiary and only holds right to charter-in contracts.

60

Our Charters

We generate revenues by charging our customers for the use of our vessels to transport their dry cargos. In general, the vessels in our fleet are chartered-out under time charters, which range in length from one to twelve years at inception. From time to time, we operate vessels in the spot market until the vessels have been chartered under long-term charters.

For the year ended December 31, 2018, HMM represented approximately 24.5% of total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2017, HMM and Yang Ming accounted for approximately 26.8% and 12.0%, respectively, of our total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2016, HMM, Yang Ming and Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. accounted for 29.6%, 13.0% and 11.6%, respectively, of our total revenues. No other customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues for any of the years presented. We believe that the combination of the long-term nature of our charters (which provide for the receipt of a fixed fee for the life of the charter) and our management agreement with the Manager, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Navios Holdings (which provides for a fixed management fee until December 31, 2019), provides us with a strong base of stable cash flows.

Our revenues are driven by the number of vessels in the fleet, the number of days during which the vessels operate and our charter hire rates, which, in turn, are affected by a number of factors, including:

Time charters are available for varying periods, ranging from a single trip (spot charter) to long-term which may be many years. In general, a long-term time charter assures the vessel owner of a consistent stream of revenue. Operating the vessel in the spot market affords the owner greater spot market opportunity, which may result in high rates when vessels are in high demand or low rates when vessel availability exceeds demand. We intend to operate our vessels in the long-term charter market. Vessel charter rates are affected by world economics, international events, weather conditions, strikes, governmental policies, supply and demand and many other factors that might be beyond our control.

We could lose a customer or the benefits of a charter if:

Under some of our time charters, either party may terminate the charter contract in the event of war in specified countries or in locations that would significantly disrupt the free trade of the vessel. Some of the time charters covering our vessels require us to return to the charterer, upon the loss of the vessel, all advances paid by the charterer but not earned by us.

Vessel Operations

Under our charters, our vessel manager is generally responsible for commercial, technical, health and safety and other management services related to the vessels’ operation, and the charterer is responsible for bunkering and substantially all of the vessel voyage costs, including canal tolls and port charges.

Under the management agreement we entered into with the Manager, the Manager bears all of our vessel operating expenses in exchange for the payment of fees as described below. Under this agreement, the Manager is responsible for commercial, technical, health and safety and other management services related to the vessels’ operation, including chartering, technical support, maintenance and insurance. On November 14, 2017, Navios Partners extended the duration of its existing Management Agreement with the

61

Manager until December 31, 2022 and the fixed rate for ship management services of its owned fleet through December 31, 2019, effective from January 1, 2018. The new management fees are: (a) $4,225 daily rate per Ultra-Handymax vessel; (b) $4,325 daily rate per Panamax vessel; (c) $5,250 daily rate per Capesize vessel; and (d) $6,700 daily rate per Container vessel of TEU 6,800. Costs associated with special surveys, drydocking expenses and certain extraordinary items under this agreement are reimbursed by Navios Partners at cost at occurrence.

Extraordinary costs and expenses include fees and costs resulting from:

Payment of any extraordinary fees or expenses to the Manager could significantly increase our vessel operating expenses and impact our results of operations.

During the remaining term of the Management Agreement, we expect that we will reimburse the Manager for all of the actual operating costs and expenses it incurs in connection with the management of our fleet.

Administrative Services

Under the Administrative Services Agreement we entered into with the Manager, we reimburse the Manager for reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the provision of the services under this agreement within 15 days after the Manager submits to us an invoice for such costs and expenses, together with any supporting detail that may be reasonably required. Under this agreement which expires in December 2022, the Manager provides significant administrative, financial and other support services to us.

Trends and Factors Affecting Our Future Results of Operations

We believe the principal factors that will affect our future results of operations are the economic, regulatory, political and governmental conditions that affect the shipping industry generally and that affect conditions in countries and markets in which our vessels engage in business. Other key factors that will be fundamental to our business, future financial condition and results of operations include:

62

In addition to the factors discussed above, we believe certain specific factors will impact our combined and consolidated results of operations. These factors include:

Please read “Risk Factors” for a discussion of certain risks inherent in our business.

A. Operating results

Year Ended December 31, 2018 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2017

The following table presents consolidated revenue and expense information for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017. This information was derived from the audited consolidated revenue and expense accounts of Navios Partners for the respective periods.